A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Cabbage is a vegetable isn't a logical argument either.

This is an ontological statement.

You are a master of the Gish Gallop.

When someone uses ad homs instead of laying out their case there is something wrong with their argument, IMO. 

Citation please.

When someone uses ad homs instead of laying out their case there is something wrong with their argument, IMO. 

Citation please.

For what?

For someone presumably using ad hominems in this discussion?

Let's say we take for granted that the universe is here as it is not because of any natural reaction or coincidence, but instead that it was created by a thinking agent. There is no real rational reason for granting this, at least none I've ever seen argued convincingly here or elsewhere, but let's skip that part, I'm saying, as an olive branch to the believer. It doesn't matter, then, if you subscribe to a big bang cosmology BUT it was started by a thinking agent, or if you think the world was created 10000 years ago. What I'm curious about is how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. How, essentially, can you convince someone else that your version of the creator is correct, and by extension your religion is the right one, and theirs is INcorrect, and therefore the wrong one? 

...how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. [?]

Presumably this is when the importance of a sacred text comes into play.

If the time, space, matter continuum had a beginning then what is the reason for it since somehow it came to be. God provides sufficient and necessary reason

Possible reason, but not a 'sufficient and neccessary' one! 

"[The entity that gave moses 10 commandments] provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe" is just not true!  YHWH creating the universe might be sufficient for the world to exist, but its not neccessary it was Him.  It could have been zeus, or brahma - either would be sufficient, but it ain't necessarily any of them! 

Prophecy provides a reasonable and logical example that is not easily refuted.

I am at a loss to know how to prove a piece of writing is not genuine prophecy.  It's not hard to show a 'prophecy' isn't neccessarily miraculous, but completely proving it?- Not possible.    

Then answer the reason why the universe came to be. Why would "chance" give sufficient reason?

"[The entity that gave moses 10 commandments] provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe" is just not true!  YHWH creating the universe might be sufficient for the world to exist, but its not neccessary it was Him.  It could have been zeus, or brahma - either would be sufficient, but it ain't necessarily any of them! 

What are you talking about, Keith? Why would The Ten Commandments give a reason for the universe? What reason would be sufficient for the universe from a human perspective? We still have various views that compete with each other. 

The evidence for Zeus or Brahma is nowhere near as detailed as the biblical evidence for God. What historical evidence can you offer for Zeus interacting with humans?

Prophecy provides a reasonable and logical example that is not easily rI am at a loss to know how to prove a piece of writing is not genuine prophecy.  It's not hard to show a 'prophecy' isn't neccessarily miraculous, but completely proving it?- Not possible.  

What is the reasonableness for your view as opposed to the historical and biblical view I can present is the question?

Then answer the reason why the universe came to be. Why would "chance" give sufficient reason?

It's interesting that you asked 'why' not 'how'.  I'm guessing that means you're not asking about the mechanics of the origin but about its purpose; you are asking why is there a universe at all.

In my worldview there is no teleological reason for the universe.  It did not come about in order to achieve some future goal - it just came about.   I think that's very nihiistic! I accept its truth because it's where the logic takes me, not because I like it.

if you insist the universe must have a 'teleological why' then we must disagree.

"[The entity that gave moses 10 commandments] provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe" is just not true!  YHWH creating the universe might be sufficient for the world to exist, but its not neccessary it was Him.  It could have been zeus, or brahma - either would be sufficient, but it ain't necessarily any of them! 

What are you talking about, Keith? Why would The Ten Commandments give a reason for the universe? What reason would be sufficient for the universe from a human perspective? We still have various views that compete with each other. 

Not 'the ten commanments' - 'the entity that gave moses the ten commandments'.  What I am pointing out is: that earlier you claimed God (ie the Christian god) was a 'sufficient and neccessary' reason for the universe to exist.   That is to say 'The entity that gave moses 10 commandments provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe'.  Clearly (to me anyway) that while YHWH provides  sufficient explanation of the universe, it does not follow that was neccessaily Him that did it!

The evidence for Zeus or Brahma is nowhere near as detailed as the biblical evidence for God. What historical evidence can you offer for Zeus interacting with humans?

There are myths and legends about the gods interating with humans in every religion. 

Prophecy provides a reasonable and logical example that is not easily rI am at a loss to know how to prove a piece of writing is not genuine prophecy.  It's not hard to show a 'prophecy' isn't neccessarily miraculous, but completely proving it?- Not possible.  

What is the reasonableness for your view as opposed to the historical and biblical view I can present is the question?

I know that people are superstitious and make up stories that aren't true.   What is more reasonble - a virgin gave birth or someone made the story up?  

For a perfect human being, the corruptible seed of Adam was not used. What other human being is this claim said of that has good corroborating evidence?

I guess women are not born with "original sin".

Congratulations on understanding the theology behind Mary's 'immaculate conception'!

According to doctrine, Mary was indeed without original sin.

For a perfect human being, the corruptible seed of Adam was not used. What other human being is this claim said of that has good corroborating evidence?

I guess women are not born with "original sin".

I could ask the why or how, but it is interesting that your worldview cannot make sense of the "why" which is why I say a necessary being is necessary for understanding the how and why with certainty. Otherwise, we are always at the mercy of the next paradigm shift in understanding.

I think I do 'make sense of the Why"' - However I don't think there is a 'why'.  That is I don't  think a god decided 'I want man to exist, therefore I must create a universe for him to exist within'. 

Why does ice float?  It's because ice is less dense than water and because that is so we get icebergs.  But 'to make icebergs' is not 'why' of ice being less dense than water.  There is no plan or objective behind it; it just so happens that ice is less dense than water and that accident of nature  has consquences - icebergs being one.  In the same way we are a consequence of the accidental details of the physics that arose out of the big bang. 

The evidence for that is better than the evidence for anything in the bible!

That is why the question becomes, If God, who is God? What are the reasons for the different gods?

I not sure you ever asked that question before!  But as you have asked it, I'd say the answer lies in human psychology.
 

So, through Adam's seed, we are reckoned. It was through Adam's seed that our natures changed in that we no longer maintained that relationship with God.   

So Mary's mother (grandmother of the Jesus) was also free of "original sin"?

I could ask the why or how, but it is interesting that your worldview cannot make sense of the "why" which is why I say a necessary being is necessary for understanding the how and why with certainty. Otherwise, we are always at the mercy of the next paradigm shift in understanding.

I think I do 'make sense of the Why"' - However I don't think there is a 'why'.  That is I don't  think a god decided 'I want man to exist, therefore I must create a universe for him to exist within'.  

Why does ice float?  It's because ice is less dense than water and because that is so we get icebergs.  But 'to make icebergs' is not 'why' of ice being less dense than water.  There is no plan or objective behind it; it just so happens that ice is less dense than water and that accident of nature  has consquences - icebergs being one.  In the same way we are a consequence of the accidental details of the physics that arose out of the big bang. 

The evidence for that is better than the evidence for anything in the bible!

That is why the question becomes, If God, who is God? What are the reasons for the different gods?

I not sure you ever asked that question before!  But as you have asked it, I'd say the answer lies in human psychology.

So, through Adam's seed, we are reckoned. It was through Adam's seed that our natures changed in that we no longer maintained that relationship with God.   

I guess women are not born with "original sin".

It sounds like women should be in charge of everything related to Christian churches.

You can give reasons for things in the universe but not the universe itself. 

You can give reasons for things in the universe but not the universe itself. 

I'll skip that you're using two different definitions of reason in the same sentence here so that I can ask you, since you seem to know, what is the reason for the universe, exactly?

You already told me there is no reason for the why concerning the universe, so you can't make sense of why in relation to it. 

You can give reasons for things in the universe but not the universe itself. You keep finding reasons which speak volumes to a reasoning Being as the cause for that reason you find. 

Ah, the old Freudian psychosis!  Freud said it and you believe it! And Dawkin's added to it! Your on that bandwagon, going nowhere. 

Throughout civilization, a majority of people have believed in an ultimate higher Being but atheism and scientism, which has zero explainability IMO, is causing some to think they are the answer. 

Not according to dogma.  

It was theorised in the middle ages that Mary was born by virgin birth.but that as ruled out by the church in 1677.   Currently, the Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception, keeping her "immaculate".

The universe demonstrates the majesty and glory of God and teaches us that the reason for it (and us) is that we might know God who has purposed our existence. 

I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.