: So I'm supposed to give physical evidence that God exists?No. I know you can't. Apart from all else, it would be absurd to suggest that God is limited by physical reality; which means that it is simply impossible to prove that physical reality has any connection to God.
: I did that earlier when I quoted from Romans that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the visible things which are seen.
And this is logical induction, based on causality.
To quote Ennos Wolthius: "It must be clearly understood that such a statement of faith cannot be subjected to the rigorous proof of experimentation or logic."
You agree with that, or you did yesterday.
If you say that cause implies effect; thus the Universe implies a Creator, you are trying to apply logical ideas to a matter of faith; you are contradicting Wolthius; and contradicting yourself.
So, is Romans wrong, or is Wolthius wrong, or are you just skimming over a contradiction without noticing it?
: However, you chose not to accept the fact that physical evidence points to a logical conclusion of a Creator of that physical substance.
: It is perfectly logical to me to conclude that if I have a watch, it required a designer and manufacturer. It is also logical to me to conclude that if I have a world and life and atoms and electrons and anything else, they must have had a Designer and Manufacturer.
Because it is inherently contradictory, as I've been saying all along.
What created the Creator?
You *must* abandon ultimate causality if you believe in God; because if you hold that a creation always implies a creator, then you must believe in the Creator's creator.
If you say that a creation implies a creator, but that the creator itself is not subject to causality, you are saying that causality is not a universal absolute; and therefore a creation does not necessarily imply a Creator.
Either there is *no* ultimate Creator; or there is no absolute cause-and-effect. Either one renders your position logically untenable. Therefore your conclusion is not a logical one.
: No, I'm unable to logically explain how God can be an eternal Being with no creator Himself. That part I accept by faith.
Which is the ultimate and defining part of faith; you either believe or you don't, as I said originally.
: But since that faith is placed in the One Who created me, it is perfectly logical to me to have that faith.
Unfortunately, the only thing you have to back up your belief is your belief itself. You can't test your God; therefore belief in God is not a matter of logic; and much as it might appear to you to be logical, it ultimately depends on non-logic; faith.
If you try and hold a logical argument with a faulty first assumption, your conclusion is going to be wrong. Since you cannot ever prove your first assumption to be true or logical , your entire logical framework is not sound.
If you wish to believe, then do so, but abandon all logic and attempts to justify your belief logically; logic has no part in faith and cannot and *should not* be used to strengthen faith.
: I don't suppose that you'd accept evidence of how God has worked in my life personally as evidence, or would you?
Nope. It's not "evidence"; it's "testimony"; which is not necessarily logical.
: The physical creation is just one area of many in this world that point directly to God.
Abandon this logic! Faith is not logic and never will be; you cannot use concepts like "causes" and "evidence" and "proof" to justify your belief; as they are logical precepts. Ultimately, you believe or you don't; trying to use logical precepts to prop up faith is like trying to use red to describe blue.
There *is* no *evidence* for your faith; there is only the faith itself; if you have the faith, you believe; if you don't, you don't.
Physical this and logical that are merely distractions from your faith, not props for your faith. If you truly have faith, then you have faith regardless of where you are or what you see.
Any attempt to drag logic into your faith merely weakens your faith and clouds your mind; anyone attempting to "prove" God exists is merely deluding themselves; you cannot use any physical object to prove the existence of a God worthy of the name.
This means that attempting to disprove evolution is in fact damaging to your faith; you are trying to use logic to disprove a logical theory and also use logic to prop up the non-logical; fuzzy thinking, not faith.
As I said at the beginning; do you believe? If you do, any physical evidence (or lack of) is irrelevant. If you don't, any physical evidence (or lack of) is irrelevant.
Myself, I settle for "maybe, but we can never know one way or the other". As a scientist, I recoil from certainties and definite statements; honest doubt and questioning is my preferred state.
Gideon.
