i dealt with this exact same objection back when i first started posting on this forum. in reply to KittenKoder, i think, i said that the existence of a thing can certainly be proof of more than its' own existence. for example, my existence can be taken as proof that my parents exist. the existence of a painting can be taken as proof of the existence of an artist, and so on. in the same way, the existence of the universe can be taken as evidence of the existence of God.<quoted text> "The existance of the universe" ONLY PROVES that the universe exists
no, that's not what i'm arguing at all. although there are people who hold to such beliefs, pantheists (all is God) and panentheists (God is all).<quoted text> The only way your argument would work is if "the universe is god and god is the universe and the universe is god". And if god and the universe are one, then the concept of death cancels out the idea of a god altogether. A god can't work if it puts its own self out of existance by including the death concept.
all i'm saying is that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. i don't see how you get pantheism and/or panentheism out of that. God can create the universe without it being a part of Him. and it seems to me that even under those views, God doesn't put Himself out of existence; rather He allows parts of Himself to take on different shapes and forms as time goes by. so part of God forms me, then when i die that part of God returns to the part of God that forms the earth, and so on. so even on a pantheistic or panentheistic view, i don't understand your objection to the concept of God. please do enlighten me.
but there are some things God has created that will not be destroyed, at least in Christian Theism. Christians believe that human beings, for example, will live forever.<quoted text> Your idea of how god works makes god impossible to exist, because a creative destroyer works out to 0-0=0: destroy what you've created, leaving nothing.
Your god simply cancels itself out by its very nature of creative destructiion.
that's why it's just an analogy. i'm just trying to clarify how i see the argument developing.<quoted text>You're messing up by using a real example in the real world to try to "prove" something that is unproven and only in your imagination.
Blood and fingerprints on a knife is evidence that can be seen and will be prosecuted as fit.
the existence of the universe is also evidence that can be seen, felt, and studied. so it does fit the bill, i think.
the 'fingerprints of God' are the beauty and complexity of the universe. if you want to defeat my argument, you have to show that the universe is not beautiful and complex, or posit a better explanation than God. my position is that random chance and mechanistic processes are insufficient to explain the existence of the universe and creatures like us who have the ability to apprehend its' beauty and complexity. therefore i take God as the best explanation for these phenomena.<quoted text>WHERE are the "fingerprints of god" in your example? Just because the universe is here does not mean god put it here. It's not that "objectors should have BETTER reasons" it's just that YOU should ACCEPT the REALITY that nothing was just "poofed" into existance by a wizard with a magic wand and that you were not brought here by the stork.
i have no problem with sex; sex too is a good gift from God!=DYou just don't want to admit the reality that it was SEX that put you here, not "god".
Sorry, you came from your mother's hoo-hoo, not the turnip truck yesterday, so stop acting like it with your "God put it here" belief.