The Existence of God (PG Version)

[Dragoon Fighter]

Because God is eternal and non changing..

How do you know this? (As it is unknowable.)

And saying that there us no empirical evidence justifies atheism, because you haven't explained how the world can exist without God. It's like saying that because there's no evidence for A committing the murder, B must have done it.

I am some what lean towards agnostic. I do not like atheism it mirrors the certainty of religion.

Here is a theory... The universal laws of physics from near creation where not the same as todays so that means we are not playing by the same logic. There is evidence of this claim such as the inconsistencies of the big bang as the big bang produces results witch do not match what would of happened in our laws of physics, there for one popular explanation is that the laws of physics where not the same. Now I know that it is a theory and can never be proven or disproved, however neither can god, and there is more evidence behind the big bang then there is with god. Now why did I type all this? To state the point that with that much uncertainty near the beginning of creation that it would truly be bad to presume ANYTHING as ANYTHING is possible, up to including god, however there are many theories that though just like god will never be proven or disproved at least have some evidence behind it.

 

[1048576]

Theories can be disproven, at least in the science realm. That's what makes it a theory. The only way to garner evidence for something is if there is a result in your experiment that disproves that thing. For example, if I drop something heavy on Dre's head, and instead of my diabolical assassination scheme coming to fruition, the object just floats, or worse, accelerates back up to me, then gravity is disproven. The reason we call gravity a theory is because we've run the object dropping experiment so many times that the evidence in favor of gravity goes well beyond a reasonable coincidence.

<3 Dre

 

[rvkevin]

The reason we call gravity a theory is because we've run the object dropping experiment so many times that the evidence in favor of gravity goes well beyond a reasonable coincidence.

Nit pick here. The force of attraction between two objects is the law of gravity. The theory of gravity explains that fact. Theories explain facts. The theory can be incorrect even if the law of gravity is still consistent with experiment. This happened when Einstein's theory replaced Newton's; nothing changed about the force of gravity, it was just that Einstein's theory has more explanatory power than Newton's.

It's like saying that because there's no evidence for A committing the murder, B must have done it.

Actually, its like saying that because there's no evidence for A, we shouldn't believe that A committed the murder. We should investigate further, and if it turns out that A did in fact commit the murder, then the evidence will show that out. If no further evidence comes further in favor of the claim that A did commit the murder, then so be it, we can't convict A because some people have a feeling that he did it. You make the mistake of thinking that atheism makes an ontological claim when it actually does not.

 

[Dre89]

Ciruclar time theories are contentious because they have many flaws, which I can debate with you if you like.

In the case of God, there is no explanation of what was before the physical (space, time etc.) so believing that there is nothing beyond the physical requires justification. If there isn't sufficient evidence presented for theism, then that doesn't mean you resort to atheism, but agnosticism, because one still must present evidence that God is not necessary.

Dragoon, God can't not be eternal, He wouldn't be a God then, but just another contingent being. The reason why philosophers argue such a God exists is because they believe such aan eternal, self-necessary being was necessary to actuate the existence of the universe, and all beings within it, for they are contingent.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Dragoon, God can't not be eternal, He wouldn't be a God then, but just another contingent being. The reason why philosophers argue such a God exists is because they believe such aan eternal, self-necessary being was necessary to actuate the existence of the universe, and all beings within it, for they are contingent.

Why can we not or, the universe for that matter, be self-necessary? What stops it from just existing? I can not give evidence that the universe does not need a god, but under the theory of a different set of laws then rules like The conservation of energy and matter may not apply in such a model. Why? If that law is broken things like energy or matter may be created from nothing and not break that set in the laws of physics. I know it is really illogical but different rules = different logic. For an example about different rules = different logic let us take two games chess and SSBM certain rules and logic in chess do not apply in SSBM and vice versa.

 

[Deleted member]

Why can we not or, the universe for that matter, be self-necessary? What stops it from just existing? I can not give evidence that the universe does not need a god, but under the theory of a different set of laws then rules like The conservation of energy and matter may not apply in such a model. Why? If that law is broken things like energy or matter may be created from nothing and not break that set in the laws of physics. I know it is really illogical but different rules = different logic. For an example about different rules = different logic let us take two games chess and SSBM certain rules and logic in chess do not apply in SSBM and vice versa.

If you are implying that the universe is infinitely old, that is physically impossible.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

If you are implying that the universe is infinitely old, that is physically impossible.

With this set of reality, maybe but not that set of reality.

 

[Deleted member]

what set of "reality"?
You can't just say the universe adhered different laws "long ago", especially if it has existed forever. You also don't bring anything on the table as proof of these different laws.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

what set of "reality"?
You can't just say the universe adhered different laws "long ago", especially if it has existed forever. You also don't bring anything on the table as proof of these different laws.

Oh, yes I did http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10989949&postcount=81 Different set of laws is one of the ways to explain those problems.

 

[gm jack]

what set of "reality"?
You can't just say the universe adhered different laws "long ago", especially if it has existed forever. You also don't bring anything on the table as proof of these different laws.

It's actually a theory being considered to explain the mechanics of the big bang (i.e. in conditions that extreme in both density and heat, the laws of physics could be fundamentally different).

Also, on the point of the universe being infinitely old, if the universe is locked in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, it may be that the universe has existed for ever, but we would be unable to know as the nature of a big bang would remove any evidence of anything existing before it.

 

[Dre89]

Also, on the point of the universe being infinitely old, if the universe is locked in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, it may be that the universe has existed for ever, but we would be unable to know as the nature of a big bang would remove any evidence of anything existing before it.

That's still physically impossible though.

It still has the exact same flaw as any other infinite regress theory- you can't have change in infinite regress. The only difference here is that it is a set of events repeating itself, rather than an infinite progression of original events.

There are also other implications of the theory, but I won't go into it unless someone pushes me.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

That's still physically impossible though.

It still has the exact same flaw as any other infinite regress theory- you can't have change in infinite regress. The only difference here is that it is a set of events repeating itself, rather than an infinite progression of original events.

There are also other implications of the theory, but I won't go into it unless someone pushes me.

It is truly not physically impossible for something to be eternally old maybe the shape has not remand the same. Things will be ever changing but not the Matter. For example let us say I die, I will then decompose the matter that makes me still exist I will just be the dirt that fertilizes the soil, the meat that feeds the vultures and the maggots, the decomposition in which fungus and bacteria grow, and finally fossils that will create oil many years into the future. I still exist but I am just a different form. Even if you argue that the atoms and molecules can be destroyed by fusion and fission the atoms them selfs are made up of part they also just change form. As you learned in science class matter can neither be created or destroyed only change form.

 

[Deleted member]

As you learned in science class matter can neither be created or destroyed only change form.

I could swear I learned E=mc^2 in science class.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I could swear I learned E=mc^2 in science class.

What? You do not remember? Here is the law just in case you forgot.

 

[Dre89]

It is truly not physically impossible for something to be eternally old maybe the shape has not remand the same. Things will be ever changing but not the Matter. For example let us say I die, I will then decompose the matter that makes me still exist I will just be the dirt that fertilizes the soil, the meat that feeds the vultures and the maggots, the decomposition in which fungus and bacteria grow, and finally fossils that will create oil many years into the future. I still exist but I am just a different form. Even if you argue that the atoms and molecules can be destroyed by fusion and fission the atoms them selfs are made up of part they also just change form. As you learned in science class matter can neither be created or destroyed only change form.

That has nothing to do with it.

You can't have finite reference points in infinity. You can't have the present in infinity, because you can't count down from infinity to the present. There are way more issues with infinite regress.

Secondly, there are huge problems with saying that such a system could just exist on its own accord for no reason. The time system itself, whether you're arguing infinity or not, is still finite. It's a complex principle that does not encompass all other existences (such as God or the big bang singularity would).

Basically, if you're going to say that a system of time is first principle of existence, then you can pretty much say a pink unicorn is the first principle, because you are not setting any conditions for the first principle. Time is not responsible for all existences, time did not create 'redness' or matter, it's just the medium through which those things function.

You're just saying time can be the first principle of existence merely to defend your atheistic beliefs. Since you are allowing a finite principle, which does not encompass all other beings (in that it is not responsible for all other existences, such as space for example) be the first principle, it's not different saying that a flower was the first principle of existence. You have defined no conditions for being the first principle of existence, time is just the one that suits atheism the most.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

That has nothing to do with it.

You can't have finite reference points in infinity. You can't have the present in infinity, because you can't count down from infinity to the present. There are way more issues with infinite regress.

The number line is infinite yet it is made of many finite points.

Secondly, there are huge problems with saying that such a system could just exist on its own accord for no reason. The time system itself, whether you're arguing infinity or not, is still finite. It's a complex principle that does not encompass all other existences (such as God or the big bang singularity would).

Hydrogen and Oxygen combine together to make Water. The reason? By Oxygen combining with water they satisfy the octet rule. Now is this a complex reason? No. What is life? A chain of chemical reactions. Why do these chemical reactions happen? to satisfy the octet rule. What on earth does this have to do with anything related to the argument? Simple. Yes, you are a right about the complex system needing a reason to exist, however you are presuming it needs a complex or intelligent one, and thus turn to god as an explication. Day to day we live our lives, we are nothing more than a huge multitude of chemical reactions and molecules, yes the chemical reactions are complex and enormous, but taken one step at a time they are really quite simple, with quite a simple reason in "mind" (I know molecules do not have a "mind".)

Basically, if you're going to say that a system of time is first principle of existence, then you can pretty much say a pink unicorn is the first principle, because you are not setting any conditions for the first principle. Time is not responsible for all existences, time did not create 'redness' or matter, it's just the medium through which those things function.

The flaw in this is you are presuming time is even real to begin with. Personally I just use it as a measurement (which it is) but weather time exist or not is a debate on its own.

Edit: when I say "time" I mean it as a relative measurement in the same way that people use meters to measure things.

You're just saying time can be the first principle of existence merely to defend your atheistic beliefs. Since you are allowing a finite principle, which does not encompass all other beings (in that it is not responsible for all other existences, such as space for example) be the first principle, it's not different saying that a flower was the first principle of existence. You have defined no conditions for being the first principle of existence, time is just the one that suits atheism the most.

Re: above and that I have already said I lean towards agnostic.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Also, there's the problem of activity. This guy in the sky does a bunch of things in 30 years, yet does nothing for the next 2000? Apparentley, he sent a guy to free slaves from Egypt. Why not send someone to free slaves from the south?

While this is true, the stories in the Bible are there to teach morals, and how a good Christian should live, For instance, Love your Neighbor.

But, there defidently were some people that helped. I am assuming you learned about the Underground Railroad in school? There is a chance that God had activity in that.

 

[Dre89]

I love when people think they know the answers to questions biblical scholars have been addressing for two thousand years.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

People have been thinking this for centuries, which is why we have wars over religion.

And i'm not trying to act like I know everything, I'm just saying what i've learned from the Church.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What? You do not remember? Here is the law just in case you forgot.

Uh... E=mc^2 is an exception to that law. It means that the energy gained is equal to the mass lost multiplied by the speed of light squared.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Uh... E=mc^2 is an exception to that law. It means that the energy gained is equal to the mass lost multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Not completely. Yes, you are correct in your statement but it is ultimately an equation that means the end result is equal to what started the reaction. The mass lost is the energy gained. As energy and matter are just two sides of the same coin (So there for nothing was truly lost). If you wish I could dig up some links.

 

[Deleted member]

Not completely. Yes, you are correct in your statement but it is ultimately an equation that means the end result is equal to what started the reaction. The mass lost is the energy gained. As energy and matter are just two sides of the same coin (So there for nothing was truly lost). If you wish I could dig up some links.

an equation only implies mathematical equality, not physical.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

an equation only implies mathematical equality, not physical.

The mass never vanished it just turned into energy. There for not breaking the law you guys are claiming it is an exception to.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

http://www.smashboards.com/editpost.php?do=updatepost&postid=11038454

Hydrogen and Oxygen combine together to make Water. The reason? By Oxygen combining with water they satisfy the octet rule. Now is this a complex reason? No. What is life? A chain of chemical reactions. Why do these chemical reactions happen? to satisfy the octet rule.

Resonance. Induction. Polarity. Conjugation. The hydroxide anion [-OH] satisfies the Octet Rule just as Water [H2O]. In basic environment Hydroxide can exist just as Hydronium [+H3O] exists in acidic environments. There also exists intermediates that have been stabilized in a given environment that do not obey the octet rule such as hydride ions in a basic environment such as a hydroxide solution.

Trivalent boron compounds such as BF3, BH3, and diphenyl hydroborate which is used in anti-markovnikov addition to oxidize alkyne compounds into terminal aldehydes also don't fulfill the octet rule, but are well known exceptions.

Here is a theory... The universal laws of physics from near creation where not the same as todays so that means we are not playing by the same logic.

I had some trouble reading your recent argument in lieu of your previous comment on the last page. Just as Chemistry is the derivative of Biology, Physics is the derivative of Chemistry. Chemical theories fall flat if they do not respect quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, ect. Arguing that physics is relative and chemistry is absolute are two contradicting approaches not only to science at large, but also as a cohesive argument.

 

[abhishekh]

Kind of unrelated to what you're discussing at the moment, but here's an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6aPzvxIlLc&feature=search

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Resonance. Induction. Polarity. Conjugation. The hydroxide anion [-OH] satisfies the Octet Rule just as Water [H2O]. In basic environment Hydroxide can exist just as Hydronium [+H3O] exists in acidic environments. There also exists intermediates that have been stabilized in a given environment that do not obey the octet rule such as hydride ions in a basic environment such as a hydroxide solution.

Trivalent boron compounds such as BF3, BH3, and diphenyl hydroborate which is used in anti-markovnikov addition to oxidize alkyne compounds into terminal aldehydes also don't fulfill the octet rule, but are well known exceptions.

I know that but they are chemically reactive as a result and will do there best to satisfy the octet rule when the conditions arise.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I know that but they are chemically reactive as a result and will do there best to satisfy the octet rule when the conditions arise.

When it comes to being an optimal nucleophile and a good leaving group, iodine trumps bromine, chlorine, and fluorine despite being in Group 17 which are halogens. According to the octet rule, they all contain seven valence electrons and only need an electron in order to complete their outer shell. Even though the octet rule is followed by many compounds, it doesn't explain all chemical phenomena.

Hydrogen and Oxygen combine together to make Water. The reason? By Oxygen combining with water they satisfy the octet rule. Now is this a complex reason? No. What is life? A chain of chemical reactions. Why do these chemical reactions happen? to satisfy the octet rule.

The octet rule isn't a governing principle that compounds follow but rather an explanation to why certain compounds exist in given configurations. Not all compounds obey the octet rule and the octet rule doesn't explain everything or even anything about a given chemical reaction. Chemistry as it exists in nature, is fundamentally complex and the octet rule is only the starting point to further exploring chemistry as it exists in organic & inorganic systems.

Also...

Here is a theory... The universal laws of physics from near creation where not the same as todays so that means we are not playing by the same logic.

I had some trouble reading your recent argument in lieu of your previous comment on the last page. Just as Chemistry is the derivative of Biology, Physics is the derivative of Chemistry. Chemical theories fall flat if they do not respect quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, ect. Arguing that physics is relative and chemistry is absolute are two contradicting approaches not only to science at large, but also as a cohesive argument.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Not completely. Yes, you are correct in your statement but it is ultimately an equation that means the end result is equal to what started the reaction. The mass lost is the energy gained. As energy and matter are just two sides of the same coin (So there for nothing was truly lost). If you wish I could dig up some links.

The mass never vanished it just turned into energy. There for not breaking the law you guys are claiming it is an exception to.

I though you were saying the amount of mass in the universe is fixed. By that I mean no change in either energy or mass, even if the total (energy + mass x speed of light^2) remains the same.

I understand that the total energy and mass must be the same. Mutual misunderstanding there.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

When it comes to being an optimal nucleophile and a good leaving group, iodine trumps bromine, chlorine, and fluorine despite being in Group 17 which are halogens. According to the octet rule, they all contain seven valence electrons and only need an electron in order to complete their outer shell. Even though the octet rule is followed by many compounds, it doesn't explain all chemical phenomena.

Fair enough however that is the reason most chemical reactions take place and even the rare ones that do not obey that rule still have a reason behind it.

The octet rule isn't a governing principle that compounds follow but rather an explanation to why certain compounds exist in given configurations. Not all compounds obey the octet rule and the octet rule doesn't explain everything or even anything about a given chemical reaction. Chemistry as it exists in nature, is fundamentally complex and the octet rule is only the starting point to further exploring chemistry as it exists in organic & inorganic systems.

If we took a chemical reaction just one equation it is normally simple (Relatively speaking of course). Now I do agree with your statement however things happen for a reason and that was the point I was trying to make and I think I have proven my point as this argument shows I was wrong if you applied my statements to everything (Which would be a fair presumption I did not say I was not...) However the argument point it's self is not refuted and this argument is supporting the argument I have made.

Also...




I had some trouble reading your recent argument in lieu of your previous comment on the last page. Just as Chemistry is the derivative of Biology, Physics is the derivative of Chemistry. Chemical theories fall flat if they do not respect quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, ect. Arguing that physics is relative and chemistry is absolute are two contradicting approaches not only to science at large, but also as a cohesive argument.

I understand why you are confused here. Let me make myself clear. I refute arguments generally point by point and treat each point as a separate argument unless stated other wise. However my believe is that if there is a different set of laws at that time then our logic can not apply so there for believing in a god, or not believing in a god is bad as you are making a presumption on evidence that neither supports or denies his/her/its existence. (Being an atheist in other words is the same as being religious in terms of having faith.)

 

[professor mgw]

Its foolish to say there is no god, or a higher entity. Just the grand complexity of the human brain that allows us to reason and come up with convincing arguments such as these in the debate hall, to make laws to live by, to be able to study and learn things on our own, our emotions, plant and animal life, these things are simply to vast and complex to say "there is no god" or that a god didn't created everything. Everything can't be completely understood, and we have no idea how large the amount of things we don't know is, so how can we just say there isn't a god without the full knowledge of a topic that will never be fully understood? Kinda like time (comparing the complexity). We have no idea of its beginning, or if it had one, has it always existed? Nor do we know of its end or if it will have one. We can't see, feel, taste, smell, or hear time, yet we do not simply say "it does not exist". Why should it be any different with a god, which is even more complex?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Fair enough however that is the reason most chemical reactions take place and even the rare ones that do not obey that rule still have a reason behind it.

Do you honestly know the type of reactions I was referring to in the above quote? Because if you did, then you wouldn't be writing this as your response. If you honestly don't know what I'm talking about when I start talking about Chemistry, then please DON'T PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW what I'm talking about. It's really, really frustrating.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Do you honestly know the type of reactions I was referring to in the above quote? Because if you did, then you wouldn't be writing this as your response. If you honestly don't know what I'm talking about when I start talking about Chemistry, then please DON'T PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW what I'm talking about. It's really, really frustrating.

I though you where talking about a chemical reaction that did not obey the octet rule. (If I jumped to conclusions I am sorry can you provide a link next time.)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I though you where talking about a chemical reaction that did not obey the octet rule. (If I jumped to conclusions I am sorry can you provide a link next time.)

No. There is a large difference between compounds that disobey the octet rule and compounds that are not explained by the octet rule. You should realize that the octet rule barely explains anything due to the fact that it explains everything using a very limited explanation. This really is something that is not up for argument. When you take Organic Chemistry you will find that concepts like the "octet-rule" don't explain synthesis reactions like Wolf-Hoffman Elimination, Gabriel Synthesis, Jean-Stark, and a slew of other chemical reactions. The octet-rule applies to the relevant compounds, but it has no use in explaining why these reactions occur. The reactions I referred to in the above example pertained to Sn1 and Sn2 reactions. These reactions basically cover the breadth of Organic Chemistry.

Edit: Okay. I was being a bit harsh. The octet rule plays a crucial role in chemical mechanisms such as Fischer Esterification where carboxylic acid reacts with alcohol in order to form an ester. In the initial step a positive hydrogen ion protonates the oxygen due to its electronegative character. This happens due to polarity. If you using octet rule alone, there would be no reason for the oxygen on the carboxylic acid to become an unstable compound. Once it becomes protonated the oxygen gains a positive charge and therefore has seven valence electrons therefore having a positive charge. This makes the compound more viable for attack by an electronegative substance such as alcohol that serves as a "nucleophile" and attacks the carbonyl compound that support the oxygen and restores a full octet to oxygen on top. So honestly, these are the first two steps written out with explanations that I can come up with off the top of my head. Does the octet rule describes really everything? No. Does it describe something in the reaction? Yes. It has a great importance in showing the mechanism of the reaction. But it is not the primary explanation as to why reactions occur as most compounds that are dealt with already have a full octet and most synthesis reactions seek to disrupt this octet in lieu of achieving the final desired material.

Edit2: Considering Fischer Esterification mainly as a reaction run by Le Chatlier and Jean Stark's removal of water in order to drive the reaction usually through azeotropic distillation. If there are any fellow science students that disagree with these as the main explanations then feel free to correct me as needed.

I apologize for being rude in my last post. I don't want to hinder your exploration of Chemistry but I felt obligated to call you out.

 

[1048576]

Its foolish to say there is no invisible unicorn, or a higher entity. Just the grand complexity of the human brain that allows us to reason and come up with convincing arguments such as these in the debate hall, to make laws to live by, to be able to study and learn things on our own, our emotions, plant and animal life, these things are simply to vast and complex to say "there is no invisible unicorn" or that an invisible unicorn didn't created everything. Everything can't be completely understood, and we have no idea how large the amount of things we don't know is, so how can we just say there isn't an invisible unicorn without the full knowledge of a topic that will never be fully understood? Kinda like time (comparing the complexity). We have no idea of its beginning, or if it had one, has it always existed? Nor do we know of its end or if it will have one. We can't see, feel, taste, smell, or hear time, yet we do not simply say "it does not exist". Why should it be any different with an invisible unicorn, which is even more complex?

Because fairy tales are for children with very limited insight into how the world works.

 

[Bookworm]

1048576, can I just ask, how much Catholic theology have you actually studied? It's just that anyone who acknowledges how immense it is, knows its no simple fairy tale, whether it's true or not.

Secondly, you are aware that an invisible unicorn has entirely different properties to God right? You are aware that the arguments theists use to conclude God's existence would conclude that the existence of such a unicorn as the first cause is impossible right?

Supposing you have done some study, how is an invisble unicorn at all like, say...Thomas Aquinas' notion of God through analogy? The very fact that the unicorn is a being already classes it under a specific genus, already on that trait alone making it distinct from God.

I don't mean to be rude, it's fine to argue that God doesn't exist, but I just don't see how you're in an adequate position to criticise Catholic theology, when you seem like you haven't studied it at all. Normally, the only people who think it's a fairytale are the one's who haven't studied it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Its foolish to say there is no god, or a higher entity.

This is so wrong it's not even funny.

Just the grand complexity of the human brain that allows us to reason and come up with convincing arguments such as these in the debate hall, to make laws to live by, to be able to study and learn things on our own, our emotions, plant and animal life, these things are simply to vast and complex to say "there is no god" or that a god didn't created everything.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Open up an evolution textbook and figure out what you are talking about. Now before you say "the chances were so bizarrely low that this happened by coincidence", keep in mind that the chances were not as low as you think because the universe had an almost infinite amount of "tries" if you will to get it right. It's just as unlikely that all life on earth would've failed to take hold and earth had been as barren as mars or venus as that the exact turn of events that lead to this moment happened. It's that typical statistical error of people being shocked at drawing a royal flush of diamonds in 5-card draw poker, but not shocked at an absolutely terrible random hand.

And also, keep in mind that if it hadn't happened this way, we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

Everything can't be completely understood, and we have no idea how large the amount of things we don't know is, so how can we just say there isn't a god without the full knowledge of a topic that will never be fully understood?

The same way you can say "I don't believe you" when you say "I can fly and lift cars above my head". The issue with saying "we don't understand, how can we say there isn't a god" is that unfalsifiable tenants are, according to the scientific principle, inherently false. According to the theory of "if we can't prove it doesn't exist, it exists", then I have super powers and will fly across the country and throw my car at you if you don't start debating sensibly.

Kinda like time (comparing the complexity). We have no idea of its beginning, or if it had one, has it always existed? Nor do we know of its end or if it will have one. We can't see, feel, taste, smell, or hear time, yet we do not simply say "it does not exist". Why should it be any different with a god, which is even more complex?

What? This is just... ugh.

 

[1048576]

1048576, can I just ask, how much Catholic theology have you actually studied? It's just that anyone who acknowledges how immense it is, knows its no simple fairy tale, whether it's true or not.

Secondly, you are aware that an invisible unicorn has entirely different properties to God right? You are aware that the arguments theists use to conclude God's existence would conclude that the existence of such a unicorn as the first cause is impossible right?

Supposing you have done some study, how is an invisble unicorn at all like, say...Thomas Aquinas' notion of God through analogy? The very fact that the unicorn is a being already classes it under a specific genus, already on that trait alone making it distinct from God.

I don't mean to be rude, it's fine to argue that God doesn't exist, but I just don't see how you're in an adequate position to criticise Catholic theology, when you seem like you haven't studied it at all. Normally, the only people who think it's a fairytale are the one's who haven't studied it.

I wasn't responding to Catholic ideology as a whole. I was responding to one particular argument.