Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).
I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin.
Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too:
A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ...
These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?
I don't have the knowledge to deal with this except to say that, under the accepted laws of physics as we understand them there can be no uncaused effect. However, there are places where these laws of physics no longer apply, such as within the event horizon of a black hole, or at the precise moment of the Big Bang. So who knows? Maybe there can be uncaused effects in those areas.

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.
An incomplete phrase. You should believe it probably happened that way because that's what my hypothesis holds to be true, and here is the evidence to support the hypothesis!