We dont need other universes to compare this one to. When we discovered the cause of volcanoes, we did not have any volcanoes we could put in a lab and study them. And we can prove He exists as well as we can prove that a chair can hold a person without actually putting weight in it.
You're shifting the goalposts.
We're not talking about discovering volcanoes, you brought up how we can identify a previously unidentified piece of art as having come from an artist based on style, brush stroke, etc.
That only works if you have previous art to compare the piece you're examining to.
So in regards to the universe, we'd only be able to identify this as a god created universe by comparing it to his previous works. You can't look at the only piece of work an unidentified artist ever did and figure out who that artist was by examining the details. You have nothing to go on.
In short, your analogy doesn't work.
As for volcanoes, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here. We can certainly study the causes of volcanoes in a lab using the data we collect in the field. We also can't bring distant stars into a lab, but we do collect data and examine that data in a lab.
So, if you can prove your god exists, then provide the hard data. What measurements have you taken, what readings do you have?
If you want to compare him to volcanoes, that's the criteria you must follow. We have not only direct observation, but seismic data, ground radar, observations of secondary things like steam vents or hot springs being warmed by the growing magma chamber, etc.
You don't have anything like that for your god at all. So don't try to compare the two things as if they were equal.
Not just me, most all biologists agree that the purpose of eyes is to see and ears are to hear. You are the only person I know of that claims that such structures do not serve those purposes.
Equivocation fallacy.
In a colloquial sense I could agree the purpose of eyes is to see and the purpose of ears is to hear. Most biologists (probably even Richard Dawkins) would agree to that. However, you're adding on the extra claim that those purposes are given by a conscious being as opposed to naturally occurring.
That's a different meaning of the word purpose. You're equivocating "eyes are for seeing" with "eyes were made by god to see". The first one, biologists would agree with, however when you tack on that extra claim, many if not most biologists would disagree with you.
It is not just my claim, it is the claim of the science of biology.
There's nothing in biological science that says god created anything. My point stands.
No, this is just simple reasoning and logic. First premise: I am claiming that purposes exist in the universe (they are just especially obvious in biology so I used those examples), second premise: since we know from all of human experience and observations that purposes only come from personal intelligent minds. Conclusion: therefore the universe including living things, was created by a personal intelligence.
I explained the reason why that doesn't work above. Just because eyes see, doesn't mean that god made eyes to see. You're inserting purpose where there is no reason to.
Just because eyes work does not mean they were designed by a conscious entity. That is an extra claim you are making which you have not yet supported with evidence.
No, reread Genesis 1 again carefully, it says that the creation is very good but not perfect. There is a specific Hebrew word for "perfect" and that word is not used.
So, god purposefully created something with a flaw in it, that would cause the world to fall into what it is today?
It was not perfect as shown above. Humans were not specifically designed to fall, they were given free will not to sin, but they chose sin.
So, god didn't want them to fall, but they did fall.
That means that we derailed god's plan, did we not? Does that mean that not everything happens in accordance with god's plan?
No, humans were not designed to fall. But yes, it did happen according to His plan because He foresaw what would happen but He did not WANT the fall to happen.
Why would he create a plan full of things he doesn't want to happen? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That's like me planning a trip to the corner store, and on the way I plan to step on a landmine that I left on the route yesterday. Why would I do that for any reason outside of mental illness?
No, Satan came to the earth and possessed the body of the serpent of his own choice, God did not put him there. It was part of Gods plan as a result of Him foreseeing what would happen, but He did not desire it to happen. It was not His ideal plan. His desire was for man to love and obey Him forever. But we chose not to.
I'm sorry, however the arguments you are presenting are progressively making god out to be weaker and weaker, to the point that he's now some powerless little nancy boy that can't do anything.
Is your god not all powerful? Does he not have ultimate control over this whole situation?
Why not snap his fingers and make Satan disappear before he could ever talk to Adam and Eve? If he foresaw that Satan would possess the body of the serpent, then why not take steps to prevent Satan from getting into the garden at all? Why allow Satan to continue to exist?
Your only defense is to make your god appear weak and powerless, which undermines your claims that god is omnipotent. That sets up a very contradictory view of god, which undermines credibility.
No, while He is ultimately responsible in that He created free will beings and those free will beings made wrong choices, they themselves are directly responsible for their own free will actions. Everything happens according to His plan but they still have free will to make their own choices.
If he foresaw everything that they will do, and created them in the way that will lead them to making those choices, then he is still ultimately responsible.
For example, if you were god and you were creating Adam and Eve, you could tweak their neurons one way that would make them choose to agree to eat the fruit, or you could tweak their neurons the other way that would have them choose to refuse Satan's offer.
No matter what way you set their neurons up, you are responsible for the choices they will make.
