"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[RINO Tom]

It stands to reason, at least to me, that it is logically impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence using evidence that humans could perceive, as this evidence would be, logically, created by such a hypothetical God in the first place.  Game pieces proving the existence of the board game designer and all.

[RINO Tom]

It stands to reason, at least to me, that it is logically impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence using evidence that humans could perceive, as this evidence would be, logically, created by such a hypothetical God in the first place.  Game pieces proving the existence of the board game designer and all.

Yes, the best one can do is argue that the state of the universe (because of fine tuning, uniqueness of Earth, etc.)  is more likely under theism than under naturalism:  of course, evem ascribing probabilities is a tricky situation in this scenario and often boils down to personal intuition.  Not to say i don’t think there are food arguments for God’s existence based at least in part  on cosmology (like the Kalam argument), but it can never constitute a complete proof, in my view.

And the bolded is my personal view.  I am just aware that it is an "educated guess" of sorts.

[RINO Tom]

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949), begins by assuming that the universe had a beginning, but can it even be proven that the universe itself has not always existed?

I don't know, but that's the working, accepted theory of the scientific community right now.

[RINO Tom]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

[RINO Tom]

My post appeared to garner significant reaction in my absence.

Maybe the Syrian War example wasn't the best example, given potential unintended consequences of suddenly stopping a war, but if an omnipotent god existed I'm sure he could figure it out. Add to that most the people getting killed are cannon fodder and collateral damage, not the ones who caused the conflict, it wouldn't be someone else swooping in to solve "their" problem.

But right now this same forum is full of people denouncing leaders in the Catholic Church for their lack of action in regards to the sexual abuse within the church. If the god they believe in existed, he'd be just as guilty. The "you shouldn't expect other people to swoop in and fix your problems" defense isn't really valid when you're talking about helpless children.

How is God guilty for what human beings do on their own free will?

An omnipotent god is responsible for literally everything that happens. Presumably, even if it chooses not to intervene in the dominoes it set up after knocking the first one down, it still arranged it such that some people would want to engage in child abuse.

Free will is meaningless if the ability to do wrong isn't there.  A God that endows His/Her/Its creations with true freedom is only "responsible" for not intervening when people abuse that freedom in the sense that He/She/It remains committed to letting said creations be truly free.

[RINO Tom]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

[RINO Tom]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

My point was that even if that what you say is true, and I don't see how it can be proven, what is the use of such a belief? Can't a person be good without such a belief? Can't a person own their own power to survive, and why outsource your power to someone else?

edit: it seems to me that it is the difference between Deism and Theism, the former believes that while such a creator exists, it doesn't really matter anyway, since this creator doesn't get involved in anyway with the universe.

Of course, someone can be a great person and life a worthwhile life without believing in a God; I have never suggested otherwise.  You simply asked what the "point" of believing one is, as if it's some choice.  A belief is simply the culmination of your reasoning on a subject, no?