>>>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.
>

Man, now the textbook argument as to call it is filled with ignorance. That's rich.


>The facts?
>
>"The universe has a beginning."
>
>That was the only fact you presented. The rest was pure,
>unsubstantiated conjecture.
>
>"And because it has a beginning or a cause it had to be
>created by someone that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial,
>uncaused and more powerful than you or I could ever imagine."
>
>^^^^none of this is a fact. It's all conjecture, for which you
>have no evidence at all.
>



>
>Your "strong evidence for God" is....
>
>"The fact that the universe exists, you exist, and I exists".
>
>So, you got me. You presented four facts, that amount to we
>exist, and the universe had a beginning.
>
>The only things you can, with honesty and integrity, point to
>as a fact, are the "what".
>
>The rest, the "how", is just conjecture and faith.
>
>>Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me
>on
>>this matter.
>
>No, you agree with them.
>
>Please show one of these physicists and cosmologists providing
>evidence for the how, and not merely explaining the what.
>
>As an aside, do you not think there are world renowned
>cosmologists and physicists that disagree with the notion of
>fine tuning as evidence for a god?
>
>You're leaning heavily on credentials of others, but not
>presenting any actual information as a response to the
>significant flaw I presented in the fine tuning argument.
>
>There's a reason for that.
>

I'm leaning on the fact that the universe exists and it has a beginning. In addition, I agree with the scientific community that supports the fact that the universe has a beginning. You want to argue the names and then dismiss credentials that are based on experience and reputation.




>>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.
>
>You're conflating your belief and what you're arguing *for*,
>with the actual argument you presented. The two are quite
>different, and what you presented gets you only to deism.
>
>

Nothing in being conflated. I gave you a straight response. It's obvious that you don't know the difference between Deism and Theism.
This can help you: https://www.theosophical.org/files/events/MahatmaLetters/About_God.pdf


.
.

“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