Yes, because when Google made Google Maps, they made it just for me. No one else uses it.
Citation required.
Because it takes me by the direct roads instead of having me wandering around backroads for hours.
You do understand it shows a diagram of the entire route, yes?
No, it literally requires zero faith. If I tell it to give me directions to my friend's house, say, and I start from my house and end up at my friends house, I do not require faith at all. This is because I see that my friend actually lives there. I conduct an actual test. Or do you think I get to my friend's place, say to myself, "I guess this is where my friend lives," then turn around and go home?
Because the electromagnetic waves that phones emit can interfere with sensitive equipment, not because it harms people. Like I said, there is zero reliable evidence that mobile phones cause harm to Humans.
Yeah, I'll wait for the peer reviews. Many times people have complained enough to get perfectly safe things pulled because they erroneously think that they are harmful.
First of all, what nut goes around holding their head to a micro weave for five hours?
Secondly, your source states: "It implies that the usage of a cell phone is more than 16 hours a day." So people are using their phones for every single second of their waking hours? Or do they just forego sleep altogether?
In any case, the website your source is on, Researchgate, is essentially a social media site, not a scientific journal. It does not require fees to publish and is not peer reviewed. In other words, essentially ANYONE can put whatever they want up there.
"There is no established evidence that microwave ovens cause any health effects when used according to the manufacturer's instructions and maintained in good working order."
SOURCE
Your source was most definitely NOT peer reviewed.
Wow, you sure love committing the false equivalence logical fallacy, doncha?
And your conclusion about God is most certainly NOT empirical. You have no objective evidence to support it.
Fine.
You said:
"Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe."
This is just the first cause argument, which has been debunked thoroughly. However, since you demand it, I shall debunk it again.
A painter takes pre-existing pigments, pre-existing canvas and a pre-existing brush to create the painting. Every other example you could use has the same limitation: a sculptor uses pre-existing stone and pre-existing tools. All creators take things that already exist to create their works.
So tell me, what pre-existing material did God use to create the universe?
If you claim there was no pre-existing material, then your analogy fails.