First hand.
I don't see this as an assumption, because evidence reveals itself, so it is not assumed. These words evidence towards my existence that are typing them.Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"
Because all physical things have a cause.why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?
The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.
Because it would be subjective relative to each person.Why can't objective reality exist without God?
What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant. All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects
For me, the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, nor do you, so that is a good testimony too.Belief in God comes before the argument, not following from it.
Bookmarks