Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you., page-30

  1. 27,663 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 3
    I wouldn't say he calls it evidence, he mainly just admits through logic and math that it's much more likely theres a creator of all things and the universe rather than everything just magically coming from nothing without any catalyst.
    He shouldn't call it evidence because it isn't.
    It is his opinion that it is more likely that there is a creator.
    He is displaying the often repeated fallacy that we don't know how the universe came into being therefore there must be a creator, forgetting that this line of belief assumes that a creator, more complex than the universe itself just exists. This line of belief creates more problems than it solves.

    He may go on and say he's with the Christian faith but i think thats an extra step further than just realising it's far more likely that theres a creator of some description.
    In my opinion, that is where he should start (and end) by explaining what he believes are the benefits of his Christian faith, rather than trying to show through logic and mathematics that God exists because that results in fallacies such as: I can't explain how the universe began, therefore, it must be the work of a creator.

    If or when one comes to the conclusion that theres a Creator/God rather than absolutely nothing then the next logical step maywell be to look into the religions and or Bible/s and this account of human history.
    I suspect that for most believers it's the other way round. They start with a religion such as Christianity and Islam through the respective sacred writings (eg Bible, Quaran), and some go on to "justify" their particular God, and others question the existence of the God.
    "A God or nothing" is just a statement of not knowing without admitting it or even realising it and is a fallacy.


 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.