Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[the_human_being]

To be honest, at the end of the day, neither side of the issue will be able to "prove" anything at all thus the argument will remain an argument. There exists many different scientific arguments as to how any event happened therefore scientists argue among themselves over what was the cause. Christians live by faith.

The mathematics of probabilities pretty much goes against sheer happenstance and flies in the face of almost any scientific explanation. Indeed, the mathematical probability of even a single cell evolving into a four celled organism is a virtual impossibility.
The mathematical probability of a big bang propelling the earth to exactly the very location whereby it could sustain life as we know it much less that rock possessing the requirements to provide genesis for life is certainly stretching the limits of possibility. Mathematics is the thorn in the side of those scientists who attempt to explain a natural evolution of life on earth.

 

[Czernobog]

I couldn't say. If pressed, I'd have to say that I am more likely to be mocking Christians, then Muslims. But, that's because there tend to be more of you guys posting on these forums, than Muslims. And you're easier to wind up.

My experience has been that Muslims are more likely not tell you to fuck off, let you know how dead you're soon gonna be, and then toddle off.

You guys just keep going, and get so wound up, that the conversations last longer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If he could a Muslim would cut your head off.

Yeah, and that's generally where conversations with Muslims - particularly the more aggressive ones - rather digress to. Makes conversations with them rather limited, and boring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This is the 2nd time you have amended statements in our conversations.

I didn't amend shit. You asked if there are just as many converstaions with Muslims as there are with Christians. You know who else I don't mock nearly as often? Hindus. Ya know why? I can't remember the last time i saw a Hindu come into one of these forums proselytising. So, if you are asking do I make fun of Christians more than anyone else, the answer is, yes. Why? Because there are more of you morons coming into these forums spewing your bullshit than there are any of the rest.

It's not about hating them less, or believing in their bullshit more. It is simply a matter of opportunity. You Christian nutcakes give me more opportunity than anyone else to mock you. Frankly that says a lot more about your lot, than it does me. maybe you should be more like the Muslims, or Hindus, or any of the other theistic religions, and just keep your moronic opinions to yourselves. Then there would be no opportunity to mock you.

So getting back to your ability to prove that you mock other religions. I'm not seeing it. I believe you are lying.

And we're back to feel free to fuck off.

 

[Czernobog]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

 

[Czernobog]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

If you are interested in this line of inquiry, I recommend Søren Kierkegaard's, Fear and Trembling.


I have always liked Kieregaard's thinking about using "logic" or "reasoning" when it comes to parsing out the existence of god.

Kierkegaard believed "each generation has its own task and need not trouble itself unduly by being everything to previous and succeeding generations".[81] In an earlier book he had said, "to a certain degree every generation and every individual begins his life from the beginning",[82] and in another, "no generation has learned to love from another, no generation is able to begin at any other point than the beginning", "no generation learns the essentially human from a previous one."[83] He was against the Hegelian idea of mediation[84] because it introduces a "third term"[85] that comes between the single individual and the object of desire. Kierkegaard asked if logic ends in actuality, can a person logically prove God's existence? Logic says no. Then he turns from logic to ethics and finds that Hegelian philosophy is negative[86][87] rather than positive.[88] This "third term" isn't mediation, it's the choice to love or not, to hope or not. It's the choice between the possibility of the "temporal and the eternal", "mistrust and belief, and deception and truth",[89] "subjective and objective".[90] These are the "magnitudes" of choice. He always stressed deliberation and choice in his writings and wrote against comparison.[91] This is how Kant put it in 1786 and Kierkegaard put it in 1847:


Thinking for one’s self is to seek the chief touchstone of truth in one’s self (id est, in one’s own reason); and the maxim, to think for one’s self at all times is Enlightening. Thereto belongs not just so much, as those may imagine who take knowledge, to be enlightening; as it is rather a negative principle in the use of one’s cognoscitive faculty, and he, who is very rich in knowledge, is often the least enlightened in the use of it. To exercise one’s own reason, means nothing more, than, relatively to every thing which one is to suppose, to question one’s self. Immanuel Kant, What it Means to Orient One’s Self In Thinking 1786


Worldly worry always seeks to lead a human being into the small-minded unrest of comparisons, away from the lofty calmness of simple thoughts. To be clothed, then, means to be a human being-and therefore to be well clothed. Worldly worry is preoccupied with clothes and dissimilarity of clothes. Should not the invitation to learn from the lilies be welcome to everyone just as the reminder is useful to him! Alas, those great, uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts, are more and more forgotten, perhaps entirely forgotten in the weekday and worldly life of comparisons. The one human being compares himself with others, the one generation compares itself with the other, and thus the heaped up pile of comparisons overwhelms a person. As the ingenuity and busyness increase, there come to be more and more in each generation who slavishly work a whole lifetime far down in the low underground regions of comparisons. Indeed, just as miners never see the light of day, so these unhappy people never come to see the light: those uplifting, simple thoughts, those first thoughts about how glorious it is to be a human being. And up there in the higher regions of comparison, smiling vanity plays its false game and deceives the happy ones so that they receive no impression from those lofty, simple thoughts, those first thoughts.

• Søren Kierkegaard, (1847) Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, Hong 188-189

As far as philosophers go, this guy is pretty good. Suffering forces us to return to successful behaviors of accountability, sacrifice and humility (i.e repent / transform). Success will naturally follow. It takes two generations to forget suffering. When we become satisfied we become proud and forget God (i.e. His ways). Predictably failure will follow. Thus completing the cycle. Everything is cyclical.

The OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering God and forgetting God. Effectively the Bible is a how to Book. How to live and how not to live. There is great wisdom contained in the Bible for those who know how to read it. No everyone does. Wisdom is not given to just any jack-a-nape.

 

[ding]

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

I have proven that evidence exists I have not attempted to prove that God exists.

What evidence? You have not proven anything.
The teleological argument is primitive in today's intellectual world of modern philosophy & science.

My argument is so far over your head that is a dot to you.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

 

[Czernobog]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

 

[ding]

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't say that science is a religion, but some idiots do act like it is. I suspect you are one of them. When I say that science "effectively" worships nature that is mean to say that science is "devoted" to the study of nature and natural phenomenon. I am almost certain that is what misterbeale meant too. If you would ask clarifying questions, you would end up looking much less stupid if than making assumptions that are false.

 

[ding]

Oh no misterbeale!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

 

[sealybobo]

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

Its your kind who denies evidence. Great example is evolution. You ignore the mountains of scientific evidence because it conflicts with your creation stories.

Or are you a theist who believes God planted the life seed and let nature take its course? I have a little respect for that hypothesis because it doesn't deny evolution.

Science doesn't disprove God but it does disprove any creation stories

 

[Czernobog]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

 

[Czernobog]

You should tell science that.

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't say that science is a religion, but some idiots do act like it is. I suspect you are one of them. When I say that science "effectively" worships nature that is mean to say that science is "devoted" to the study of nature and natural phenomenon. I am almost certain that is what misterbeale meant too. If you would ask clarifying questions, you would end up looking much less stupid if than making assumptions that are false.

The only ones looking stupid are the ones trying to turn science into a religion. Having the sole purpose (the definition of devoted) of studying something, does not make a field a "religion". It doesn't even make it like a religion. It only makes it a field of study. Period.

 

[ding]

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

Its your kind who denies evidence. Great example is evolution. You ignore the mountains of scientific evidence because it conflicts with your creation stories.

Or are you a theist who believes God planted the life seed and let nature take its course? I have a little respect for that hypothesis because it doesn't deny evolution.

Science doesn't disprove God but it does disprove any creation stories

My kind? I love evolution. You are the one who runs away from evolution by limiting it. What would you like to talk about?

 

[Czernobog]

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

Huh?

You ever go to court? Evidence is presented. Then each side argues what it means. Then the judge or jury decides. Regardless of the ruling the evidence is still the evidence. Evidence and finding are two different things. You were trying to disprove God. I was just trying to prove that evidence could be used to make that argument. For some odd reason you guys are scared of me discussing the physical evidence.

The problem is that you are claiming that the universe is evidence of the nature of a creator, without even establishing that there is a creator. Don't you think that it should first be establisnhed that the universe was created, before demonstrating how that universe can be used as evidence of the nature of that creator? This has been the opposition all along. In order to make your point, you are demanding that we first concede that the universe was created. Neither I, nor sealybobo are willing to concede that presumption.

 

[ding]

"Science" is not much better than a religion. When the ultimate truth is finally understood, we will find that the source, what ever you want to call it, God, Allah etc. and what Science worships, are one and the same.

Science "worships" nothing, so I would agree. your "source" will turn out to be exactly what science worships - nothing.

Science is the study of nature. Science effectively worships nature. You worship science when it suits your arguments but are the first to reject it when it doesn't.

Study is not worship. And I don't worship science. Science is not a religion any more than atheism is a religion. You really do have a hard time understanding this "worship" thing, don't you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I didn't say that science is a religion, but some idiots do act like it is. I suspect you are one of them. When I say that science "effectively" worships nature that is mean to say that science is "devoted" to the study of nature and natural phenomenon. I am almost certain that is what misterbeale meant too. If you would ask clarifying questions, you would end up looking much less stupid if than making assumptions that are false.

The only ones looking stupid are the ones trying to turn science into a religion. Having the sole purpose (the definition of devoted) of studying something, does not make a field a "religion". It doesn't even make it like a religion. It only makes it a field of study. Period.

Like most things, this has sailed over your head.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Reason is fallible, experience is limited.

You should tell science that. Sure... reason might be fallible and experience might be limited. Reason also might not be fallible and experience might not be limited. The reality is that using proxies are common in science. So are using experiences. They are called observations. There is zero doubt in my mind that evidence for a Creator does exist. Just as a painting can be used as evidence for a painter, Creation can be used as evidence for a Creator. I believe the mistake that many are making is confusing the concept of evidence for the concept of proof. Evidence is a physical tangible item. Proof is an intangible determination of evidence.

No they're not. Using analogies are common. But proxies are not. Just because "a" does not indicate "b". Fish have gills. That does not prove that all animal s have gills just by using fish as a proxy for kangaroos, because they are both animals.

Your "evidence" is only evidence of your confirmation bias.

A proxy is anything that is used to represent something else. In this case we are using our experience in creating tangible items as a proxy for God creating the universe. From our experiences we can use our reasoning ability to determine what kind of information we can gather from what we created. So whether or not you call it an analog or a proxy does not change the intent, observations and findings from this exercise. All it really does is show your lack of objectivity in examining the nature of evidence and its uses. Given your analog, it is clear to me that your still don't understand the difference between evidence and findings. Evidence is used to inform the finding. Evidence is not the finding. The fact that you still don't get this (i.e. evidence) proves (i.e. finding) that this is still over your head too.

I understand the concept of evidence just fine. The problem is not in my understanding, it is in your misuse of the concept. Let's go back to your original question. Can you name something that you have built, or created?

No thanks. Been there and done that.