Inventing gods

A popular atheist argument online; "it's easy to invent god, as long as he's invisible, undetectable, etc..."

Correct. It is easy to create a false god.

Two points that are logically sound;

1. That doesn't mean this is how God originated.

2. If it's easy to invent false gods then why is that?

It's possible to make a false god up because invisibility yields the same appearance as non-existence.

If I create a false god right now called, "zug", I can do that because invisibility hides the fact he does not exist. We know that he is invisible because he doesn't exist. But the reason you can't say God is the same as zug is for the very same reason. (The invisibility problem)

Think about it, we still don't know if God's invisibility is because of His non-existence or because He can't be seen or detected in the natural. Therefore it's fallacious to presume God is unreal because zug is. Even if you think it's "probable", that doesn't prove equivalence. 

Also, "if" God did create life and the universe then GRANTING zug omnipotence can't mean zug has it. 

In other words the reason God may be there is because of the intelligibility and design we find in the universe rather than the mess you would expect from materialism (if anything at all)

In other words, WHAT DOES EXIST AND IS VISIBLE gives us a reason to believe God does exist and may be omnipotent whereas we simply imbued zug with omnipotence. If zug's omnipotence is fictional then he cannot be equivalent to God unless you assume atheism. (atheism is question-begged with this argument)

To prove this argument you have to show something invisible and unverifiable can only be fictional. If you can have such a thing be either factual or fictional then it could be either one so there is no reason to choose, "fictional" just because atheists say so. 

It is only ABUSING HINDSIGHT to PRETEND a prediction of atheism would be an intelligible universe with design. That is the prediction for a creation. The design of your eyeball is not a religious creed.

Why Science Fails Logical Rules Under Naturalism With Non-Provable Theories

 Ever seen a whodunnit movie where the culprit is someone you thought dead or it's a ridiculous red-herring? Let's assume it was the butler but because he was assumed dead all of the facts were interpreted in light of his absence.

This is a logical error where an argument contains premises based on the assumptions that something is false.

If you then PROCEED with examining the facts, what the facts really mean is banished from your investigation.

So if the butler left his fingerprints on one of the murder weapons, that will be dismissed as inconsequential because he was assumed dead at the time. "Perhaps he used that weapon when he was alive" might be the reasoning you would use. 

The problem with unprovable science is that it only accepts arguments or a hypothesis that is methodologically natural. But that is their ideology; to explain the whole world in purely natural terms. That is their motivation. And of course if you speak of design or creation we are told, "that's pseudo-science", or, "that's not science".

However is it true? "IF" design/creation is true, then it follows logically that the scientific mainstream have classed it as banished from science even though it is true. You may object; "but it isn't true!" But that objection IMPLIES you have applied science to it. But how could you have done that properly if mainstream science has not properly applied study to it? Therefore you make a philosophical statement based on personal feeling! (You can't have your cake as an ornament and also eat it)

The classic argument put forward by naturalists is this one; "but look at how many scientifically natural explanations superseded superstitious or supernatural ones".

But that is actually an expected tautology(1) when it comes to the natural operation of things. Operational science refers to the operation of the natural universe. We expect there to be no supernatural assumptions for this science because all operational science turns out to be provable.

I am not referring to operational science which is provable, I am talking about non-provable past events of the creation or beginnings of a thing rather than it's operation.

So by analogy we would not expect to find the creator of a vehicle inside of the car's engine for we would expect the engine's operation to not require the creator but we would expect there to be a creator/designer, at the time the car was created.

In the same way all provable science is provable and not dependent upon supernatural explanations because God created the universe to run on it's own. We expect certain forces to be there such as lift or downforce or linear momentum. The reason we can prove they are there is that we can always induce the same results. We can always show exotic air exists because a rat placed under a sealed dome will always become unconscious. You can perform the experiment once or one billion times and the result will be the same because we have provably deduced exotic air exists. It's the same with lift or downforce, we don't need to check if a plane's wings will produce lift every time we are at the airport, we already know they will. We don't need to see a formula one grandprix car corner fast in order to find out if the centripetal force and downforce will negate linear momentum (or centrifugal force).

But when it comes to the creation of the universe or life's creation, nobody can scientifically test. Nobody can scientifically test if a bat macro-evolved as we have never found any ancestors for a bat which were on an evolutionary path to bat-hood. 

Therefore this logical problem of of the assumption of naturalism, greatly weakens unprovable science such as macro evolution and abiogenesis. (micro evolution is provable so the problem doesn't apply to it. Population genetics are factual, they simply don't extend to Darwin's stories). 

(1)Expected tautology; "the universe is operationally natural therefore you will find natural causes to it's operational elements" or intrepreted; "Duh!")

Believing The Bible Gives Proper Answers To Atheist Arguments

Believing the bible as it's plain and obvious meaning, and taking it as real historical events and actually listening to the things Jesus said or the New Testament says, actually gives answers and counter-arguments to popular atheist arguments that make sense. If the bible is just a book of poetry then why are these answers so solid?

For example a popular atheist argument is that, "generally prayers go unanswered". They then offer this up as a reason God doesn't exist. BUT, what did Jesus say about the world? what does the bible say about the world and it's state?

He said that Satan is in charge of this world and that, "wide is the path to destruction and many there be that find it". In other words, Jesus was saying that most people are lost to their sinful nature and that only few will believe because he said; "and difficult and narrow is the way to salvation and few there be that find it" (paraphrased as I can't remember word by word)

Conclusion; would it make sense if God was answering the world of the damned? Would it make sense if prayers were generally answered when according to Jesus Himself most people are apart from God taking the path of sin and not being born again like He said?

Clearly the New Testament says that only those with God's spirit have access to God.

See how easy it is to defeat atheist-reasoning if you take the bible to actually mean what it says rather than just seeing it as a jumbled bunch of made up stories?

Conclusion; see how the bible and Jesus's very words can always give answers that make sense? It gives other answers to. There is a big, big advantage against atheist-arguments when you actually believe what the bible says.

For example, if you believe the world flood did occur then when evolutionists ask for a dino in the Cambrian or a human fossil in the Cretaceous, if we look at the bible pertaining to the flood, then those layers would be contemporaneous anyway, so they would be regarded as all being laid down by the flood, so to find a dinosaur in the Cretaceous means it lived at the same time as the trilobyte found in the Cambrian!

Can you see how easy that is to answer! And there are even reasons to believe you would never find a human in the Cretaceous if we instead of accepting a prehistoric world instead accepted a pre-flood world. Because if you think about it properly, the assumptions you get from those two very different worlds, lead to wildly different conclusions.

For example a pre-flood world was predicated on the perfect world found in Genesis (Eden). This means all of the things we take for granted such as migration of animals and allopatric speciation and so forth, just didn't exist. The original pre-flood super continent was a large zoo with every animal to ever exist found in that zoo, and none of them were extinct, for they were all extant. That means if dinosaurs lived in an ecological zone that was ten thousand miles away from humans, then they would simply never have any reason to leave that zone to be found fossilised with humans. 

CONCLUSION: This is the tip of the iceburg, the things that make rational sense if you accept the bible as real, are basically endless. For example why did God create disease? Attenborough argues a parasite lives in the human eye, and asks why did God do that? But He didn't do it, because in that pre-flood world all such species would be symbiotic, and all live in their correct hosts. But when the flood came and many organisms went extinct at the time of the flood or after it, they lost their hosts. In fact diseases always arise in time, look at the last century and all of the new diseases!

See how easy it is to defeat atheism when you actually read the bible and find out what it really would mean for this world? 

NOW LET'S SEE IF A COMPROMISED THEISTIC EVOLUTION WORLDVIEW HAS THE ANSWERS; (to which I will "guess" the answers, highlighted in red)

What about disease? Answer; Well according to a natural worldview disease and death are just a part of God's creative world, why does God allow millions of years of misery and disease and even now allow it among humans rather than a paradise? I don't know, perhaps that is God's paradise and he is sadistic, or he doesn't have the power over disease because evolution is stronger than him, and every time a rabbit dies he weeps in heaven, regretting his inflated big bang. (under a view of the bible where you accept naturalism, evolution, and just see the bible as metaphor, please note that Jesus healing people would be an act AGAINST God the Father, because God the Father under this view of the world, uses disease and suffering and evolution, and it is part of His process of creation. So when Jesus healed a blind man that would be an act against God because God intended disease as part of His evolutionary process)

What about unanswered prayer according to a compromised bible and all are saved? ..Answer; well, I guess God is simply on vacation.

What about the design-standard in nature leading to biomimetics? Is that cleverness that exceeds human thought power coming from God? No, evolution, meaning God didn't have the brains to overcome evolution, and I guess He just has to go along with what evolution decides even if it decides to create monsters that eat humans for breakfast, and in that case those monsters would be made in His image. Or some such thing as an answer, for your guess is as good as mine given this strange deistic concept of God where no result was ever influenced by Him and He never did anything meaning it makes no difference if you believe in Him or not.