U can observe God look at the way the universe is connected and has way it functions on all levels. If there is this connection there has to be something building it or atleast maintaining it. So if its maintains it it has to be doing it as a force outside what's being maintained. So what is that. And yes u do have to defend ur argument because words were made to share ideas about something we saw or felt. We wouldnt agree on the idea and make it a word unless we were visualizing the same concept that the word represents. So u cant be an atheist u cant even have an opinion because u say u have never seen God to prove he is real but u cant say u have seen all so if I watch a movie and u say the movie isnt real do I have to proves it's real or do u have to prove it's not. U say u have seen all movies and this one isn't real button yet I'm saying I've seen this is movie and I know it's real. Ur assuming u know all but yet I have to prove what I saw was real. All I have to do is prove there r things u dont know and ur concept falls apart. Any one thing that I can name that u dont know makes ur previous concept of assuming u have seen all as false from that point forward. U have to prove ur side I have to just disprove ur current understanding in a way that shows something outside ur current belief
The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.
U can observe God look at the way the universe is connected and has way it functions on all levels. If there is this connection there has to be something building it or atleast maintaining it. So if its maintains it it has to be doing it as a force outside what's being maintained. So what is that. And yes u do have to defend ur argument because words were made to share ideas about something we saw or felt. We wouldnt agree on the idea and make it a word unless we were visualizing the same concept that the word represents. So u cant be an atheist u cant even have an opinion because u say u have never seen God to prove he is real but u cant say u have seen all so if I watch a movie and u say the movie isnt real do I have to proves it's real or do u have to prove it's not. U say u have seen all movies and this one isn't real button yet I'm saying I've seen this is movie and I know it's real. Ur assuming u know all but yet I have to prove what I saw was real. All I have to do is prove there r things u dont know and ur concept falls apart. Any one thing that I can name that u dont know makes ur previous concept of assuming u have seen all as false from that point forward. U have to prove ur side I have to just disprove ur current understanding in a way that shows something outside ur current belief
The problem arises that you are making the argument for agnosticism, and not for God's existence.
Just as in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not on the defendant. The accuser makes the allegations and must sustain them with evidence.
It is humanity's experience that God does not exist, regardless of the amount of belief we apply, because belief is outside the methods we use to understand the universe and its mechanics, and none of those methods can even formulate a basic assumption for the existence of God.
In fact, the more we refine those methods, the more they do not require and exclude God. If you are to observe the progression of science you will see that early scientists' universal models did include God, to explain those things not covered by their models, but as science progressed, those models become more complex and expansive and God was gradually and finally completely excluded.
As such, for you to provide evidence of God, you are required to provide the models and methods by which you have concluded God's existence, and thus far, all that has truly been provided is belief, which is quite possibly the least convincing thing there is, as anything can be believed by its mere statement, without any sort of evidence.
For instance, I believe there is a race of purple spidermonkeys on some planet in the galaxy next door, I can't prove it, but I believe it to be so, and now I come to you and ask you to prove it's not so. Does that sound fair?
For me the "way the universe is connected and functions on all levels" is simply not enough. It may even be a valid observation, but it does not follow that it is necessarily attributed to God's work or proves its existence. In fact, none of our current models of universal mechanics require, assume or prove God in any way.