We don't wish to cause confusion, though, between close correlation and causation. And based on what you wrote above, I have evidence for the effects of gravity but not for its causation. Is God gravity? Does gravity exist?
For there be causation, there still needs to be evidences to show that
WHAT is the CAUSE.
But you don't think it is WHAT; instead you believe this CAUSE is a
WHO.
Whether it is a WHAT or a WHO being the CAUSE, this CAUSATION still required evidences for its own existence before you can use this "God" being your CAUSE in the cause-and-effect argument.
Claiming God to be the cause, without evidences that God is real, is merely you projecting your belief.
Your belief is not counted as evidence.
You can claim the creation requires creator, or design requires designer, as a "logical" argument, but that is still based on belief too, and the logic is both biased and flawed.
You are forgetting that logic too, just like belief and opinion, (logic) isn't evidence.
Logic is human rationality, and every human think differently, and all such reasonings are essentially subjective. Like I said, logic will only go so far, so if you have agenda, it would be biased and flawed.
You do have an agenda, you believe in god and in Jesus, therefore any statement you make regarding to either one of them, are bound to biased.
And what about those who follow a different religion and worship different god, or even a goddess. How is your logically possible, but not one of the other religions people follow? How is your belief superior to theirs?
And there are literally thousands of different philosophies, and with each one, might clash or conflict with the logic of others, which it would mean, they would think their premises for rationality be superior over others, because they are naturally to defend what they believe in.
I don't personally follow any one philosophy over the other, exclusively. But I do take a bit of a number of different philosophies of what I think it is their respective best, as I build my own philosophy.
But in the matter of science, I rather followed where the evidences lie, not on belief or logic alone.
Evidences are what make scientific theory "objective", not the belief or faith, and not logic. Logic, belief and faith are all subjective.
You are only advocating what you believe in, and that's what you base your logic on. That type of logic is fallacy is what I called circular reasoning when you use "God did it" or "Creation requires Creator" or God is "all-powerful" arguments.
Evidences are used to leave out human biases, and the conclusion is reach from tally of what test results or evidences say, whether it be "for" or "against" the hypothesis or theory.
Again, what evidences do you have for God being real, and not some imaginary invisible entity built from belief and ancient text?
I don't use "subjective and personal belief" to guess that there is a God. I go by a combination of reliable texts including eyewitness testimony, logic, clear thinking and fulfilled prophecy. You might need to hope for facts in other faiths but not in Christianity.
The bible isn't a reliable evidence that can be used, in science. It isn't even reliable in the history department.
Too many things in the Genesis, Exodus and Joshua they got historically wrong.
Even with Mary's conception and pregnancy and Jesus birth, sound invented by the two accounts of different gospels. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are not only cannot be verified historically, they are grossly exaggerated.
The human divine conception and virgin birth are not possible biologically, but they are possible in myths. But myths are not good testimonies, and certainly not reliable.
And none of them appeared to be eyewitnesses to what they described about Mary and Jesus.
Think about it.
These two gospels were written between 70 to 85 CE. If Jesus was the real then he would be born before in 6 or 5 BCE, before Herod's death in 4 BCE. So how can either authors be eyewitnesses?
Mary and Joseph? You think they are eyewitnesses?
Judging by the way gospel of Luke was written, it would seem that this gospel was written more in Mary's perspective, while that of Matthew in Joseph's perspective, because the angel came to Joseph here, not to Mary.
Judging from what all 4 gospels narrated, Joseph wasn't alive around the time Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Judaea. So how could any author get Joseph's account of what happened when Joseph was long dead before the gospels were ever written?
Jesus didn't have any disciple before his ministry, so how could the author to gospel of Matthew possibly know about the angel appearing before Joseph, when he was already dead?
And how could the author possibly know what happened in Herod's palace, like what he said. Neither Joseph, nor Mary could be eyewitnesses to what went on in Herod's hall. So who was or were the eyewitnesses in Herod's palace?
The Magi? They could not possibly know that Herod gave the order to massacre the boys of Bethlehem, because they weren't there when the order was given in Herod's palace, and they left Bethlehem before the butchering took place. So who are the gospel's sources.
Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, gave the most detailed account about the life of Herod the Great. He had far greater access than any NT authors, because he was of noble birth to any palace, and had access to the Temple, as well to any Roman records. Josephus recorded a lot of the scandals in Herod's court and his family, such as betrayals and murders, but why is there no mention of Bethlehem massacre?
Josephus also never reported Herod meeting any magi.
So without independent testimonies, outside the gospels, I would reason that the two gospels invented a lot of things that happened around the time of Jesus' birth.
And the gospel of Luke is even more exaggerated, with the shepherds witnessing host of angels above Bethlehem. Where would the author find the shepherds some 80 years in the past?
Josephus also stated that the census in Judaea and Quirinius' appointment didn't happen until Herod have been dead 10 years and that his son Archelaus lost Judaea in 6 CE. The census didn't take place twice, so the gospel must be wrong.
Josephus reported that Saturninus (9 to 7/6 BCE) and Varus (6/7 to 4 BCE) were Roman governors of Syria when Herod was still alive, not Publius Quirinius. Quirinius only served as governor from 6 to 12 CE.
So as far testimonies goes, the NT writings doesn't really count as reliable or accurate.
