Evidence Against God

[Abishalom]

Why should the same evidence be usable for "proving God", I say that ironically, if it isn't allowed to discount him? Sounds like you're the one lacking the comprehension here pal.

What exactly are you trying to say Ralphie? You're all over the place. You quote me saying "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" and tell me that this is the same thing as saying "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (which it isn't). Now you are asking me if the same evidence usable for "proving God if it isn't allowed to discount? Where did I say that? You seem to be making inferences from my quotes that just are not there.

---

Right because scientist cannot understand it, therefore it does not exist.

No, it doesn't exist because its logically impossible. That's the same reason why it also doesn't make any sense.

Yes in that there is a beginning to everything that exist. If in fact there was no God and nothing in the beginning and nature popped into existence. How then do we get all this diversity and complexity? These are the kind of questions scientist rationalize with naturalism to explain away God (but they don't do very good job at it).

So, let's get this straight. If you are provided evidence that matter can pop into existence without any cause, you'd consider it as proof against god's existence and become an atheist?

Let's put it like this. Can they prove that the universe and everything had popped into existence with absolutely no help? You're me to consider something that is illogical.