The words “Ray Comfort” and “excellent book” instantly puts you in the “pay no mind” list.
Here’s a thorough debunkingof your “excellent book”
God’s existence due to the creation of the entire universe is most assured and reassured.
Well, that’s great, but which God?
Even granting this bit of logic (which is highly suspect to begin with), that doesn’t establish that the one you accept is the one responsible.
Note that even the Christians on this board (of whom several have posted in this thread) don’t think much of your logic on this one.
Water is BTW found on other planets.
And in comets. So?
But the god who created the universe wants us to sacrifice virgins (male and female, he’s not sexist) to him.
Prove me wrong.
The creation of the universe brought about your god’s existence? How does that work?
A god could not create itself. God’s god must exist for that reason alone.
A god could not create itself. God’s god’s god must exist for that reason alone.
A god could not create itself. God’s god’s god’s god must exist for that reason alone.
Etc ad infinitum.
Your “proof” disproves itself. It makes no sense. It’s not even sophistry because it’s not even superficially plausible. The very existence of anything proves that creation isn’t required for existence because if creation was required for existence it couldn’t have happened because there couldn’t have been anything existing to do the first creating. You’re creating a very flimsy facade of a rationalisation of your belief and passing it off as a proof. It’s not.
It’s peculiar that creationists crave science’s confirmation of the Bible - generally confirmation is something that a more reliable source does for a less reliable one (children go to parents for confirmation of what day their birthday is, or how many weeks remain until summer vacation, adults ask their doctors to confirm health information they’ve heard from advertisements, etc.).
No, this is not ‘most assured.’
You are avoiding the question of how God came into existence. If “he” (gender being silly to ascribe to an omnipotent eternal god) has always been, then why couldn’t the universe have always been? The Big Bang being a localized phenomenon isn’t precluded by current theories.
Ha! It’s gods all the way down!!
Genesis said your God made the earth, sun, moon, and stars, but not any other planets. Therefore some other God made them. Therefore your God must have stolen the other God’s water. That is a point based on pure logic and reasoning.
ETA: You know who else is a low-down mangy water-stealer?
Paul Atreides?
Got it in one. The God Emperor of Dune.
What does god need with a universe? If god wants adoring sycophants, wouldn’t building one populated planet suffice?
That was the traditional Christian view. One populated planet, some other worlds, then stars stuck on the wall surrounding the universe, with God around there somewhere.
Strictly speaking, Leto II was the GE of D, not Paul.
The OP strikes me as one of these Christian traditionalists. So I’m wondering if he’ll offer an explanation about why his God has gone to the trouble to create the known universe at all. Particularly a universe that appears to be downright inhospitable to the very same beings he is said to love some much as to have created them in his own image.
A very good book is “Archaeology of the Bible” by Jean-Pierre Isbouts.