All the planets are shaped like meatballs. Ergo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god. Checkmate, atheists!

As far as I'm concerned, there are 42 gods who made everything.

I am a theist and I love this. I can't stand the nerve of people who say every other religion is ridiculous when they believe in something just as ridiculous. I may believe there is a higher power, but I don't dare to claim I know exactly what that higher power is when I have no proof.

@mabo612 Have you ever seen a Pruis car? It's so amazingly put together. All the component parts work together with amazing precision. Obviously, each and every Prius was designed and made by one person. Surely, if more than one person had been involved in designing and making the Prius, then the car would be utter chaos, right?

We live in a universe that is able to have us to exist. Shocker. Was the hole created in the perfect shape for the puddle or did the water adapt to the shape of the hole. This is what it boils down to (excuse the pun).

I have proof! "Banana" Behold, the Atheist nightmare.

your asking people that can't think for themselves to think outside the box!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'm a former Christian and now I pretty much consider myself an atheist so this is my answer... I really don't know how we all got here, I don't know if a God created the universe or not. I don't even know what there is a God or not. All I know is that I simply don't care, I'm just thankful to be alive. I just speak my believe in logic in common sense.

Proof: Everything is rushed and designed terribly. If there were more Gods there would’ve been more manpower, and maybe things wouldn’t have turned out so bad.

Did you ever get any responses?

Everybody knows there's one god for every knob of the Fine Tuning Machine®.

@zfish50 I'd rather keep searching for a good answer, than simply settle for an ill-informed one.

I am a Christian and I don't have any evidence that you can observe using the modern scientific method so using your standards I fail this challenge.

Ingenious challenge, NSC - I like the way you have side-stepped the most common debates and found an equally valid one, for which people will be less prepared with existing "stock arguments". Neat!

I love the idea of the universe being created by a committee of God's!

@valu777 Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Any God that can't fight iron chariots isn't worth getting worried about anyways.

@pseudoknife Yes, I've done all that, done it all. Done it, done it, done it, & believed the voices in my head for several years. And so what if I have? Are you saying that the answer I get THERE, by doing THAT, is the true answer? Coz guess what it showed up, in actual fact, in the long run, long after the tears streaming down my face as I accepted Christ had dried up - it showed up that the whole thing is a fabricated bunch of unsubstantiated bollocks. Yeah, I've "met" this "I am". It isn't.

@jamesrobertdobbs Can't prove it's not, : therefore, IT IS! :)

As far as a non-theistic explanation behind fine-tuning, I think that at first, there was nothing. Not 'nothing' in the sense that we usually mean it, where it's a bit of the same universe with the same physical laws that doesn't have stuff in it, I mean a complete lack of any defining traits. Something lacking any defining properties isn't going to be stable, since stability is a property, so I figure it collapsed into a chaotic inflationary period, leading to eternal inflation, yielding a multiverse that's constantly inflating somewhere or other, occasionally shitting out bubble universes with their own set of constants, leading to some collapsing rapidly, some which don't allow atoms at all, some which have such minimal gravity that galaxies never form, and some that have properties that allow chemical patterns that can lead to life, such as our own. There's no specific basis for the nothing-to-chaotic-inflation bit, but to me, it feels like a semi-plausible explanation for why there's stuff instead of no stuff. Chaotic inflation is an actual model of inflation proposed by people that aren't random, uninformed jackasses like myself, and it can provide an explanation for apparent fine-tuning.

Because MY GOD said so! ... I WIN!

@tmesist The conditions I 'impose' are the sort of conditions that are always, always imposed when the truth of something is being ascertained in every field of human interest EXCEPT FAIRYTALES. So I'm quite happy to accept those limitations if they're similarly 'imposed' on me. I have no fairytales to defend.

Thank you NonStampCollector for your thoughtful contributions to this issue that too often is full of defensive argument.

While I personally don't believe in any gods, the existence of multiple gods seems more likely to me than only a single god existing. It's way easier to explain inconsistencies in "god's plan" if it's multiple powerful entities with different visions, compared to a single, all-powerful entity that just can't seem to stick to their ideals.

“Ray, when someone asks if you are a god, you say YES!” -Ghostbusters. Boom proof that there are multiple gods. Just claim that you are a god and you instantly become one. I don’t know why more people don’t do this, seems so obvious.

Based on just a few of the comments that have been posted so far, I'd say it's likely that not only has no one proven anything, but many have provided me with a good laugh. I may just spend a little extra time reading some of these "gems." Thanks folks!

@SauerKraut537 That was such a beautiful summation that I had to copy it into the description box. Hope you don't mind. :)

I'll give the challenge a go- (though, I'm not a believer myself). I would assume that they'd respond like this: "I think a "challenge to prove" is the wrong kind of question. God doesn't want his reality to be proven. God's plan is to prevent harm coming to those that don't follow or believe in him. If someone commits a wrong, they are held accountable. Just like you can't explain why the speed of light is the speed it is, I cannot explain why god exists. The reason is that it is a spiritual question. I'm not sure if you've ever taken LSD or the like, and had some kind of profound experience that can't be put into words, but the nature of spiritual answers is elusive. Empiricism can provide us with a description of reality that is incredibly accurate in some areas- but empiricism relies on assumptions such as "things in the past will resemble things in the future". How does one prove a question like that without relying on the very assumption that you're trying to prove? Spiritual questions need spiritual answers. God doesn't give empirical answers to people about his nature, because just like saying a punchline before a joke ruins the humor of the joke, understanding the empirical reality of god before taking the necessary spiritual steps ruins the growth that would come about. The humor is impossible without the proper order, just like the growth is impossible without the proper order. If god does exist, and his task is to help us grow, and the only way to grow is by having necessary experiences of faith prior to a complete understanding of god's empirical reality, then asking for empirical proof is the wrong kind of question. It doesn't mean that truth isn't out there. And you could easily ask why does this special kind of growth god has in mind for us require a particular order. The very nature of the answer is going to be like humor itself as well. How do you prove to someone that the empirical method works to explain why the world is an oblique spheroid? You start with what they know, and take them through a knowledge learning process involving a lot of empirical proofs that they can accept. How do you give someone the understanding of the spiritual method to prove to them that god does exist? You start with what spiritual understanding they have, and take them through a spiritual learning process involving a lot of spiritual things that they can accept. If someone isn't willing to accept basic axioms of empiricism, spirituality, or logic itself, then there is nothing that you can do to "prove" to them that god exists. Pray, act in faith, turn to god, meditate, fast, open your mind to the nature of the universe in whatever ways that you can- and then you will get your spiritual answers about god's nature. If you can't do that, then how can you expect someone to accept axioms of empiricism? Is it because the axioms are easier? Is the ease of understanding something indicative of it's truth? If that were the case then general relativity would be one of the most false ideas in existence. However, it is not. God's method of learning the truth of his nature is merciful in a way that might be possible for you to understand logically given certain assumptions. Assuming that there is an element of balance in the universe (like entropy and the like), and that god does exist/holds us morally culpable for wrongs we commit, then if god were to let people that didn't have any spiritual capacity to understand the reality of his existence, then those people were to doubt, turn away from, and deny god later on - then because the degree of knowledge of god's existence was full, then the punishment for turning away from that knowledge must also be full. That is why the spiritual punchline comes after the spiritual set-up. But to even understand that requires certain assumptions. If that bothers you then this is the challenge as a believer that I give to all atheists: "Show me some kind of proof that doesn't rely on any assumptions whatsoever." If you can do that, then you can doubt my assumptions. If you want proof, you need to go on the spiritual search like I said before. Can I prove that god exists? Yes. Can I prove it to you? No, you can only prove it to yourself (or rather, god is the only one that can prove it to you). You might say to yourself: "What would it take to prove you wrong? What would it take to admit that you're wrong, believer?" I'm going to say probably the most unsatisfying answers for you: "You cannot, because I've had it made spiritually manifest that there is a god." "What about the lack of free will?!" You'll say. "Free will is preserved in god." " ... Normal me: So yeah. That would go on forever. The spiritual claims that theists make rely on spiritual assumptions. And if you "go on the spiritual journey" that they talk about and didn't get an answer that god doesn't exist, then they would of course say: "You did it wrong". So... That's pretty much why I gave up trying to prove that god doesn't exist. I still point out, like you do, stupid things that specific religions believe in, but I don't think that proving that god doesn't exist is possible. I know that's not the point of your video- but my yeah. Let me know what you think of my best attempt at an answer (actually, attempt to dodge an answer) to a question I don't even believe. Love your videos, by the way. Seriously funny, and I think they do a good job of pointing out errors in theists' thinking. Plus telling stories/ showing people is one of the best ways to convince them that they're not as correct as they think. Everyone could use a little bit more humility.

@ravenprey666 "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." -Mark Twain

From the times I was catholic (I'm a happy atheist now), I clearly remember this logic: a god created the universe and consequently *for us* it was the trinitarian god of the bible. Even then, it was really clear no one attempted to go further. There was NO proof that this allegedly "creator" was one, particularly the trinitarian one. That was accepted by faith and revelation only. So, no, believers have zero evidence or proof for this connection. I laugh at believers trying to "prove" it. By definition, religion goes with faith and faith alone (subjective faith and the faith of others that become the authority). And when confronted with the question "how do you know it must be your god?" There is NO evidence whatsoever. Zero. Nada. Only their subjective faith, hoping that is the right one...

I feel as though this is a bad challenge as proving that a singular god created the universe begs the claim of the existence of God. As a Christian i believe that such a being exists, however I also believe that if a God could be proven to exist then there would be no atheism or any other religions because someone smarter than me would have already figured it out. That being said, in terms of Christianity, i feel as though this frames the debate of the existence of God or Yahweh poorly. For Christianity, the existence of Jesus points to the existence of a loving God. However I also believe that the universe and everything in it is a creation that points to a non-specific creator/creators. For me, I believe in jesus which means i also believe the creator is God. A definition by association.

1. There would be conflict. Any more than one entity will result in 2+ different beings, each with their own opinions, personality, etc. They have the ability to argue, and this could escalate into full out war. Wouldn't we as humans observe the aftermath/brunt of these battles? 2. They would disagree on how nature would behave (laws of physics). We don't see gravity sometimes making a rock fall to the ground and sometimes pushing it towards the sky. - Acuity in Apolegetics blog

@LumieX >You don't need thought to be able to aggregate together and form e.g. a cell membrane. It just happens because of hydrophilic attractions... If a huge amount of energy is released in a mixture of all those units, units of life can come to exist => Millers experiment. Lightning can cause that huge amount of sudden energy.

Hindus believe in 330,000,000 gods. Now that we have a better idea of how complex life is, that sounds like a better answer than 1.

It took, likely, 42 gods.

I used the example of gravity because it is a basic force. All tectonic plate shifting is gravity keeping the landmass from flying upward (as well as keeping sediment on the seabed), and heat is the component that moves it (billions of atoms shaking rapidly). While 2+ beings perhaps wouldn't necessarily fight, I find that hard to believe. Imagine if you were one of those gods. The other god could betray you at any point between now and eternity. Who will strike first? Who is the strongest?

@chul "i'm not asserting that there is no designer. I'm simply rejecting your assertion that a designer exists" What`s the difference? Rejecting the assertion makes u hold an assertion, like it or not. And ur assertion will be "there is NO designer" Reject the assertions doesn`t prove u r right, just prove u lack of knowledge to build an argument in your favor. You hold an assertion, like it or not.. the problem is that you have NO arguments in favor of your position but rejection of mine

And The Survey Says!

Omega - .3 (the density of matter in the universe) and lambda - .7 (density of dark energy in the universe) what does .3 and .7 add up to? You guessed it... 1. I'm an atheist, and physics is my god.

1. Bull, we know the neurological and biochemical antecedants to such experiences 2. Bull, you have no reason to believe a deity exists + see last point 3. What do you call the phenomenom between a thought and action? TIME! "true wisdom is simple" Bull, you're trying to escape infinite regress of complexity by inserting a contradiction. "as the phsycial components demand something prior to bring them into being" No, they dont. Tell me why matter cant be eternal and has to be created.

@LumieX - No, Abiogenesis demonstrates how the forces of physics alone could create a self-replicating molecule that was capable of mutation, forces such as surface tension and electrostatic forces are sufficient to create the machines that molecules use which you call life. Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur. It is not spontaneous and has a very definite mechanism. Even the results of the Miller-Urey experiment yielded much more than they realized at the time.

I'll attempt to deliberate the issue from a logical approach, yes, logical, believe me. To begin with, let's get a few things clear: 1. There is no restriction upon the types of beings created by a god, including those that may not be known to man. God is beyond human comprehension and there is no reason to believe that God has revealed all his plans to mankind 2. A being that creates nothing is not a god 3. A being that creates something but in turn is created by some higher beings is not god, he's just one form of creation 4. By definition god is timeless and spaceless, so any 2 beings having same attributes and properties can only be the same being since its existence cannot be delineated by time or space. Now the argument starts: Anything with a complex organization must be created by intelligent design by one or more godlike beings But such creator beings must in turn be designed and created by another group of higher beings according to the fundamental hypothesis and therefore by 3 above is just one form of creation (though godlike) and not god Since God cannot be created it then follows that this hierarchy of creation by intelligent design, higher level creations must assume a simpler structure of organization with reduction of complexity By deduction, the levels of creation thus converge to the simplest form that cannot be further reduced. There may still be more than one beings at this top end of the creation tree following different streams of creation paths, but then when we reach the top, this top level must have the same level of least complexity nonreducible further so as to negate the need for a higher creator. But by 4 above, these beings must be the same being Therefore there can only be one God or no God, it doesn't resolve the dilemma between atheism and monotheism but prove that this can be the only logically possible duality in theology, so the argument may go on for ever. Some important corollaries that follows are: The one God must have no form and organized structure and is of no substance and matter God must have no emotion nor consciousness Only fulfilling this can there warrants the simplicity that requires no higher creator I can't believe I could have demonstrated this thesis so brilliantly without divine inspiration!

Ooh here comes the science deniers to the comments Ya gota love when religious people try to bring science down to their level by calling science a " religion " .

This challenge is basically a strawman because nobody would jump from "Does the creator exist?" to "Yeah, it's Allah/Jesus/Brahman". He would just think about it and say "Yes" or "No". If he says "Yes", he can go from there and think about the nature of God. So there are two steps: 1. Does the creator exist? 2. Who is the creator? Nobody answers both questions at the same time.

"multiplicity only exists within space and time" if we accept this is true what reason do we have to believe that singularity would be any different than multiplicity in this respect? Wouldn't space and time be just as much of a requisite for the existence of one thing as for the existence of two things?

The banana. It was so perfectly made for my hand and for to stick in my hole. bam, evidence. Nobel prize please. :-)

Challenging a theist to test their faith is like challanging a fish to walk on land.

I'm gonna make a prediction without reading a single comment,......nobody accomplished what was asked.

@nwankwourf After 40 years since becoming an atheist, I don't think I'll going to change my mind. I've been much happier for 40 years as an atheist than I ever was for 10 years being a christian.

Metaphysics 1075a7 "If the Unmoved Mover were composite, understanding would change in understanding different parts of the whole. Perhaps we should say that whatever has no matter is indivisible." Love your work, NSC!

I'm jew and this is my answer (even if nobody will read it but ok) monotheism come after polytheism. The first monotheist saw polytheist gods and said to himself : "which is the most powerful god" first answer: "the sun, because it provide us with light, heat, crops, and if I look at it I become blind, proof of how powerful it is." But a cloud pass in front of the sun and a storm rage on, blocking the light. "So it's the cloud, the weather, because it provide us for water and can block sunlight, yes the cloud are a more powerful god" But wind disperse the clouds, make tree fall, tremendous forces that can't be stopped. "Ok it's the wind, he beat the cloud who beat the sun, he must be the most powerful god" etc. Then the monotheist said to himself "all that is nonsense, every time I find a god, I find another one more powerful" so here there is two major conclusion: 1) There is no god and all of that is just reality that we perceive strong or not, but it's our human conception that make sun/wind/cloud a god 2) There is only one god, invisible, immaterial, one we could never apprehend. Now because I'm a jew and I love questions : Are these two conclusions different? I'm not talking about the Bible, the bible come after. The "FACT" of god existence come after a HUMAN perception of reality. You can say there is and that there isnt a god with the same argument. So the fact that god exist is nonsense. It's not even a question. Actually that's why jew don't call nor represent god (sorry for you pal but yaweh is a christian misconception. actually god has no "humanly speaking" name so we call it "lord") because it is important to REMEMBER that god isn't a "thing" nor a "consciousness" It's the full force of nature around us that we don't apprehend God is the horizon of knowledge. And religion is the mean to thanks being alive and here to enjoy. It's a vector of philosophical knowledge. A cement of people around something beautiful. And of course religion is dangerous because it can block you from reality and I see it and i'm very sad of it. Well feel free to discuss this with me if you want. I'm a biologist btw, so before you ask I hate creationist as much as you atheist.

@ishgood100 There's absolutely no reason to believe that. How many people designed the Prius? One? The team of engineers and designers managed to come up with something that exists and works.

1. Hypothesize that there are multiple Gods. 2. [insert some religious fallacy] 3. Contradiction between 1 and 2 4. Therefore, there are not multiple Gods 5. [insert leap of faith] 6. Therefore, there is one God. Q.E.D.

It's not just a coincidence that the words 'god' and 'dog' are quite similar.

It’s obvious. Oden and his brothers killed Ymir and made the world and then Zeus fought the titans and then Jesus invented america gobbless

1. It 'could' escalate into full out war. But 'could' is the key word here. Humans have shown time and time again that they're very much capable of working together and creating a product that shows one vision. I see no reason why two gods couldn't work together to create a universe that seemingly works just fine. 2: Mostly the same as 1. If one god can decide not to change rules willy nilly, this can also be true for 2.

1. You see, thats your problem. I myself am a neuro-psychology student so I know of dozens of studies in which brainareas were stimulated either through chemicals or direct electrical stimulation to achieve quite clear results. 2. the universe consists of space, time, matter - so what is beyond it is beyond those properties". How do you know? The term "universe" is used for the finite amount of matter that we live in. What's outside that universe is unknown, but to infer that it therefore [->]

So, in Metaphysics, Aristotle then addresses whether this Mover is composite. His theory of Being is known as hylomorphism, or matter-form. Substance, or matter, assumes the form of particular things. But the Mover is pure form, without substance. It must be since it is changeless and matter is that which undergoes change.

@Strangerinasland The big bang. I mean at the moment we can't say whether that sudden expansion was due to the generation of all matter and energy. Or whether it was due to the conversion of pre-existing energy into matter.

I think that philosophically it makes sense that everything ultimately began with one source and not multiple. Scientifically, we see this with evolution which began with LUCA and the Big bang which began with a singularity. Assuming that gods do exist, I would say it’s more likely that one all-powerful god is responsible for creation.

this has to be entitled challenge for monotheist since i'm a polytheist i was going to answer this

Non stamp collector is the one true god. (Real gods just love to be buttered up)

@mjmenjivar When I said "At least close their mouth" I mean they don`t make fun of things they DON^T KNOW.... So, in case you feel offended...

@nwankwourf "have I read the bible?" I grew up reading the bible in a strict religious home. I went to church, sunday school, teen bible study groups (which my parents forced me to go to), prayers every day. Have I read the bible? Yes, I have. Have you? It's a book of myths.

The Moral Argument for God's Existence implies One God 1. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then there is an objective moral standard. 2. There is objective morality. 3. There is an objective moral standard (i. e. God and his perfect moral will, neither natural nor restricted to province or time). This argument can be refuted by deny that there is objective morality or to demonstrate objectively that it does not follow that an objective moral standard be supernatural, etc.

The fact that you are unable or unwilling to understand the arguments, does not make them invalid.

I miss the reply uploads that KZfaq used to allow

Because by definition God is all powerful. It's like saying "sure, your car is an vehicle gets you from A to B but their car wasn't designed for that, it was just designed to eat sandwiches inside", then it's just a model of a car just like the greek "gods" were false Gods. They conjured up so many "gods" without thinking that they didn't realise it didn't make sense.

@LumieX That reference is entirely accurate and is exactly as I described, so what's your point? Note the terms are given in ascending order of importance and note that "(laws) are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true." Laws aren't proven, they are simply accepted from simple observation. A law can't be used to refute a theory since a theory is based on many multiples of observed facts and experimental proofs. You should reread that article.

I don't see why you're making this so complicated, it says quite clearly in the Edda that Odin & His brothers slew the frost giant Ymir and built the world out of Ymir's corpse. :P

@rlondo Did you see what I wrote below? 1. The universe has a beginning. If it did not, how did it get here? If it has existed for infinity, how did we get to the point that we are now? The time of our arrival would never arrive. Think of a road that is infinitely long. Now put a car at the beginning of the road. It is infinitely far away from you. No matter how fast it travels, it will never arrive to now. Agree? Disagree?

Now to check the comments for the answer

@observersearcher NOTE: I am not claiming the ULINK as a point of belief. I created the concept to address the issue of conjecture. Since, many people don't seem to understand that non-refutable DOES NOT mean that any given thing is true. The construction of the ULINK is based on what we know and the logic of things to the extent that we know it. I took advantage of our gaps of knowledge in the construction - like we don't know about ultimate beginnings so it fills that in as conjecture...

Polytheism or monotheism, both can be metaphysically reasoned. Like it or not, good sir, but they're a bunch of hypothesis. And as Laplace said as Napoleon was boggled by the fact that Laplace never mentioned the word god in his book of mathematics, "I'm in no need of that hypothesis." That's simply because it will get us no where! A belief is always a belief; something to trust without evidence, like hope.

@mabo612 just for you know there is about a 65million mile gap for the earth to rest in that could sub-stain life. Its not exactly fine tuned. Kepler telescope has discovered many planets about 60 that are in a "Goldilocks zone" that revolve around stars. And these are just planets that have less than 180 day orbit cycle in the parts of the sky it was pointed. Out of the non fine-tuned gluttony of billions of stars and planets there will be some temp sub-staining planets.

@OTSTRETFORD "the chicken is needed to make an egg, thus it must have come first" But chickens come from eggs so thats impossible. An egg is needed to make a chicken and a chicken is needed to make an egg, hence the paradox of the question. One had to have been created at some point. Yes the chicken came first but it cannot have occurred naturally since it's a logical impossibility.

The Fibonacci sequence shows up all over the place in natural stuff from ears to shells to the Galaxy to waves, unless multiple gods agreed on this style which still holds up as a possibility then it would be one God with a specific Style, tho I'm uneducated on the Fibonacci sequence tbh and am atheist/agnostic anyways, I just thought I'd make a crappy argument for the one side that I can't find any comments from in the mountain of mocking comments from the other side On a perhaps more interesting note, the concept of self gets weird when you don't have physical bodies, would Gods even have a concept of self well enough to discriminate between each other? just a thought

well 10 years have passed and im sure there were 1000s of water tight arguments brought forward?

In a sense that is true but by 'nature' I mean the physical laws of nature as we know them. Just because things are the way they are in our universe doesn't mean that the same applies to the outside. It's like a glass of water. There is water inside the glass but not necessarily outside of it. Although you could place a glass of water inside a larger bowl of water. :)

Obviously Jackie Chan made life, the universe and everything. Anyone who has seen that guy in action could tell you that he can do any thing. Yup, the answer is Jackie Chan.

Reasonable evidence that there was more than one designer: the platypus, a mammal-by-committee. :)

Well there's matter and antimatter, which are opposites, and actually "normal" matter's gravity will repel antimatter.

@LegoWorldCrisis science cannot explore creation or life after death, the same way it cannot explore unicorns, budu, magic, dragons... you cannot study the inexisting.

Not believing is often accompanied by positive claims that truth can be determined without God, that evidence can be can be evaluated without knowledge, that absolute truth does not exist. Non-belief does not exist in a vacuum.

It’s not crazy how there’s no coherent answer to it because we knew that was going to happen, the crazy part is how few if none of the theist replies even understood the question. 😳 It’s not an insult to their intelligence but a display of twisted thinking.

I instead choose to prove the converse. The fragility of the knee joint, the persistence of the appendix, and the widespread appeal of American Idol all point to a highly imperfect universe. Therefore, evidence suggest the universe was created by committee.

@LumieX The defining of the code is what we humans did to understand DNA. DNA translation just happens because of the sterical configuration within the DNA-t-RNA bond. It's just a bunch of chemical reactions that happen. We defined the code so we could understand how DNA works. DNA isn't that complex at all, it just exist out of 4 different nucleic acids. Whats so complex about that?

I find avicenna proof of the truthful to be very Convincing that there is one god

Nope, you're are nitpicking and biased, I win, bye bye

@rlondo At this moment, all we're establishing is that the universe does have a beginning. First there was no matter, then there was matter. Where did it come from? Since we know that every action requires a cause, what was the cause? There had to be some kind of will involved, because the will is the only non-action that can cause action. You can pick up a glass without a force causing your arm to move, but because your will is to pick it up. So the physical universe had to start with a will.

@LumieX Thats where the difference lies between building blocks and amino-acids. Amino acids can aggregate together without the need of a thinker...

evidence of design is not evidence of one designer, his point is that it could have been multiple (and there's also no evidence of design anyway, he's only granting that for the sake of argument)

@Iwantamansonguitar I know all about it but creating building blocks and creating life is such a massive difference that it doesn't even warrant discussion. Thats like asking me to build you a house and me dumping a pile of bricks on your lawn and telling you its a house. A pile of bricks is so far from being a house that it's ridiculous and you would probably be pissed. A pile of amino acids is no different then a pile of bricks, completely useless without someone to build them into things.

I like the part where God made the universe and everything in six earth days even though the earth hadn't existed yet in order for there to be days to be counted. And if God made the earth and the universe for us why did he make it so we can't travel any further than 26,000 feet to which we can't breathe

@miamorhardstyle But the premise of the question was that at least one God exists. The challenge was to prove that only one God exists and not two or more. Basically, NonStampCollector challenged me to prove a negative, that more than one God does not exist and that those other "gods" had no role in creating the universe. I answered the question flawlessly.

no need for more than one creator isn't evidence that there is only one. One person could write a whole computer program, but it's still typically split among a company. As a minor note, I also object to anyone saying we can't possibly ever know anything about something. Something being currently unknown is not a demonstration that it is unknowable

@rlondo In reality, all argumentation is circular. It can be well attested or poorly attested, but everyone's argument rests on unproven assumptions, even that of scientists, as I demonstrated. So you're right, it would be more accurate to say "My argument is no more circular than arguments you think are not circular." But that was pretty wordy. I'm not at the point of demonstrating one God, I'm building a case. At this point, I haven't established it was one will or two. Just that there was.

@zfish50 Yeah, it was a bad example, I just wanted to use it somewhere and this was the first place that offered the opportunity. My purpose in life is to figure out how the universe works, and to figure out how humans can more effectively explore it. This is a purpose of my own choosing, not handed down from On High. I don't really know any other way to describe it.

@LumieX I fail to see the major problem here though? micro evolution = short time. macro evolution = long time. Whether the virus stays a virus is merely determined by what name we choose to give it.

Dogma - A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. No argument is dogma. They are two different things. The unmoved mover is an argument, not dogma. See the link to the Summa Contra Gentiles at my channel.

... to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck Lecture, 'Das Wesen der Materie' [The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter], Florence, Italy (1944).