Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?

[Ignorant]

Okay, look up the definition of "falsifiable" for your own use in the future. You seem lost. [1]

Also, if we just want to throw words like "god" around while leaving the baggage behind, I will now define you as a cheese ball. [2] Never mind what that has been used for before. That doesn't matter. You're just carrying around too many assumptions about those words and I can use them to prove whatever I want. [3] 

1) I am pretty sure I am exactly where I am.

2) Fair enough. Call me whatever you want.

3) Well, you might go back and look at my first comments about Thomas's proofs. Actually, I'll save you the trouble:

"To be fair, none of Thomas's 5 ways individually prove that a divine being exists." -Me, HERE, emphasis added.

---

Yeah, I don't think there's enough drugs in this city to get my brain in your state. I'm going to bed, but I'll try to find your dealer later. Good luck with life, Ignorant.

Thanks! Cheers!

---

If it already has a label, why rename it 'God'? [1] And how do you tie this nebulous description back to the very human descriptions of the Catholic God in the bible? [2]

Then once again, why call that 'God'? Why not simply stop at 'existence'? [3]

Seriously? I would challenge you in the strongest terms to provide even the slightest evidence to that effect. I predict that you will be incapable. [4]

Disagreement doesn't however the fact that there can be no evidence to support such a conclusion does. [5] There is no evidence to support your conclusion therefore it is an assumption at best. [6]

Almost all correct except that you don't test for falsehood, you test for veracity. [7]

Once again, you're nearly right nearly however in this case, defining falsifiability creates impossible tests: you would have to compare existence with non-existence. Since it's impossible to produce non-existence, claims reliant on such tests have to be dismissed as unfalsifiable. [8] Instead, the requirement then becomes 'demonstrate existence' and this is something that all 'god' concepts have failed to do so-far, spectacularly. [9]

1) Because none of those things (e.g. necessary being, being-itself, goodness-itself, etc.) individually and adequately capture what god is. Even all of them understood together doesn't really get at the whole of god. So we use the word god as a place holder for the abstract and transcendent reality which we are talking about.

2) That's much more difficult (in fact impossible) to do based purely on reason. The Catholic tradition claims that this nebulous being (or whatever the hell it is) has actually spoken to and through human beings, and it has also entered a concrete relationship with humanity through the Law and the Prophets. Then, the nebulous thing united a concrete humanity to itself (in the person of Jesus) so that it could speak to us and live with us and enter into a concrete relationship with us in a concrete and human way. That is the claim, and you either trust its authenticity (through faith) in a way that doesn't directly contradict reason, or you don't. Reason alone won't get you from "being-itself" to "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit". I readily admit that.

3) We do call god existence itself. We don't always do that because it helps avoid ambiguity.

4) Some things evidently exist on the condition that other things concurrently exist. Either everything exists on the condition that other things concurrently exist, or some things exist of themselves. Saving you the time, I find the former to be impossible, and so at least one thing must exist of itself. The mere fact that some things conditionally exist is evidence that some things must exist of themselves. Yadda yadda yadda.

5) If you agree that some things have conditional existence, then you agree that my evidence exists, you just disagree with the conclusion I draw from that.

6) See above. I don't begin with the assumption that necessary being is a thing. I conclude that from the presence of conditional being.

7) How so?

8) But non-existence is not impossible in principle. It is only practically impossible because things evidently exist. It is formally flasifiable while being practically unfalsifiable because it is logically true! =)

9) That is the thing. If anything at all conditionally exists (which they do), then that logically requires the existence of something that unconditionally exists. That is the demonstration.