>You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but didn't
>provide any evidence.
>

You understand the facts of the argument. No need to rehash the known.


>Worse, even if I grant you all that you mentioned as evidence,
>and that evidence is sufficient to get to a god.
>
>Nothing you presented is sufficient to get to your particular
>deity.
>
>This is yet another instance where what you've presented can,
>at best, only get you so far before you have to just believe
>that you're right, but the arrogantly act as though your
>belief isn't simply a brief at all, but an established fact.
>
>And that's when you're granted a bunch of caveats out of sheer
>generosity, but cannot substantiate.
>
>Providing the Kalam presup nonsense about something that "must
>be timeless.....etc" only highlights the argument from
>ignorance fallacy, because it relies on acceptance of the
>assertion with absolutely zero evidence to support the
>assertion.
>
>In other words: once again, the facts don't actually support
>the conclusion, and you still have to rely on faith, which is
>not at all reliable.

Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me on this matter.

And know, I didn't just step into Deism. I'm clearly arguing for the Theism position that is based on the belief in an active and involved God who created the universe, you and me.

Boy Bye!

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork