You are right. The only credibility my testimony has is for myself, and to some degree for people that know me now and knew me before, or who trust me. In terms of objective proof, I’m strongly persuaded by the “first mover” argument. If everything must have a cause, and the first thing cannot, by definition, have a cause, that first thing is supernatural. Similarly, the argument from complexity, the very ordered nature of the universe indicates a rational creator, since the whole string of cause and effect unravels if a single law of nature is changed. It is not dispositive in terms of a “proof.” But surely it is enough to get rid of juvenile athiesm and the view that God is impossible and disproven somehow by science (a science often created by scientists who were also Christian, see Newton, Leibniz, Heisenberg, Copernicus, etc.). The sophomoric athiest seems to think that he can prove the reverse somehow, that he can “prove” the non-existence of God. He does this without even subjective proof, a visitation from the great nothing, who told the athiest that he does not exist. The most I can say is that my faith is based on evidence and is rational.
Well, see, we’ve found some level of common ground. I have as little time (probably less, actually) for “sophomoric atheists” as I do for those who engage in blind faith. Unfortunately for both of us, I believe that the sophomoric and the blind make up the majority of people on both sides.
The sophomoric athiest seems to think that he can prove the reverse somehow, that he can “prove” the non-existence of God.
The ultimate non-existence of God cannot be proven, just as the ultimate existence of God cannot be proven. All I have been trying to point out in my previous posts, in this and other threads, is that all of the empirical evidence to date certainly seems to point to the non-existence of God. And I’m glad that someone else here besides me understands superposition and that it is perfectly possible for something to come into existence from nothing; as demonstrated by modern QM theory. If the religionists studied science, they might at least begin to start understanding our arguments, rather than resorting to name-calling like “sophomoric” or “juvenile”. Isn’t it children who believe in fairy tales and adults who do not? Who is being juvenile here, really?