So in science when we have a proof it isn't like some all encompassing thing that needs every detail; it can usually be summed up with a statement, then justification of that is the proof itself. So you can summarize the five proofs into a single statement. Just crystallize each one.

Here is your Single Piece of Evidence. Pick one. Get it out of a library. When you've digested it and th ink you understood it, come back and we'll discuss:

https://smile.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser-ebook/dp/B0754MJFMG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536610535&sr=8-1&keywords=five+proofs+of+god

I'll play. The big bang is a reliable theory because there's a single point that all matter currently visible in the universe can be traced to based on current expansion

If you want proof in more modern scientifc arenas, got that too.

Stop being lazy

You, right here, list a thing

Just gimme like, a crystallized conclusion he's making. Like, "We didn't accidentally into explain the whole the big bang, therefore god"

@Ghostler Big Bang Theory: given to you by a man named Georges LeMaitre. Look him up on the Internet. He was a friend of Einstein's, a Cosmologist, and a Catholic Priest. He was directly inspired by the Book of Genesis when he formulated it. The Big Bang is absolutely and undeniably evidnece that there has to be a God. LeMaitre was hesitant about saying so, but only because he believed his theory m ight be wrong.

Wot

@Ghostler A Christian who believed in the Book of Genesis used it to help him create that Big Bang Theory.

Sorry, you're going to have to explain how that's proof

"The Big Bang is absolutely and undeniably evidnece that there has to be a God" - How? You can't prove it, can you?

@Ghostler Certainly, by inductive logic. That an Ultimate Intelligence did it is the most rational, logical, evidence-based conclusion, and since it matches up with evidence we have in dozens of areas, it's worth listing. 😉

You've gone back to a conclusion, not evidence

why is that rational?

Any attempted alternative explanations are generally incoherent and devolve to "we just don't know" or armwaving generalizations.

bit circular isn't it?

Ye

How so?

It seems like you're just expressing it as some magical thing because there are current limits to our understanding.

The man who formulated the Big Bang Theory believed a creative intelligence was running the universe and started it, that it had a beginning, as described in the Bible (when you don't read it like a childish moron like Ken Hame).

Lets say that we were somehow able to, via experimentation, able to re-create it. What would that say about your theory?

The Big Bang Theory was given to you by a scientist and Christian who was directly inspired by his religious beliefs. You'll have to live with it.

calling the big bang "the beginning" is misreading the current science of the big bang

its more like looking at a flashlight in the dark

@Ghostler I dont' think it would say much on its own.

Would you move the bar back? Would only the original `big bang` be a valid thing that God can do?

Hold on, so if someone came up with an idea, and they were right, how does that extend to other ideas they have?

you know there is a source emitting light, you can trace all the light rays back to that point, but you can't see behind it

"calling the big bang "the beginning" is misreading the current science of the big bang" -- nice try, but no it isn't.

Yes it is

there could be "god" holding the flashlight, or it could be sitting on the ground

Big bang is part of a cyclical process

Look, get over it, you just tried using Big Bang to somehow prove religious people stupid, and didn't know religious people gave you Big Bang based directly on their religious beliefs. hehehehehehe.

you just tried to use an unknown to prove god

"Big bang is part of a cyclical process" -- some scientists believe this some don't. Some data says it's true and some doesn't. What of it? That's just kicking the can down the road if it's true (and it's not clear at all that it's true).

which is find to believe, but not good reasoning

I don't care who makes something that's good. There's no poisoned well here. Hitler did /wonderful/ things for germany

its a guess at best

Well it doesn't have to be certain. As long as it isn't it undermines your already poor argument