like he said experimental they dont even know if its an electron do they know what an atom looks like answer is no we dont

the study of cosmogony cannot even go past the end of space? how can you deduce that there is no creator? if you study force and energy then there is a creating force behind everthing you cannot deny that.

The so called philosophical proofs for a god are all based on circular logic. Descartes in particular allows his faith to delude him, and lead to illogical arguments. These arguments are easily shown to be false.

Here are Descartes arguments:
1. I have an idea of a perfectly good God
2. That idea must have a cause.
3. Nothing comes from nothing.
4. The cause must be something that can conceive the perfect in which is conceived
5. I am not perfect, and therefore cannot on my own conceive the perfect
6. Therefore I could not be the cause of the idea.
7. There must be a cause that is infinitely perfect.
8. God exists because he must be the cause.

NOW, why that is wrong:
If these conclusions were true, then anything that can be imagined to exist, must exist, as he claims it cannot have originated with him. I imagine a perfectly good Flying Spaghetti monster, I could not have imagined the perfect spaghetti monster on my own!!!

The fact is, that the idea did originate from something, it originated within his own mind. The brain is capable of imagining the concept of perfect, just isn't able to achieve it.

Further Descartes actually refutes his own god proof in the same philosophical line in which he claims to prove him, with the denial of his own existence arguments, concluding the only universal truth is that he knows he exists.

All the proofs are based off the assumption that the existence of logic, or certain conceptions can somehow prove a god, which are preposterous.

__________________

We cannot see an atom in the visible light spectrum because they are too small for the frequency of visible light to capture. We can capture it in different electromagnetic frequencies, which is what has been done. Our machine sees it for us, and converts it to a way that we can see it.

We can deduce based on evidence that the earth, the sun, the galaxy, etc. were all produced by natural cosmic evolution, thus meaning that the existence of a deity is unnecessary. There is no test for a god, nor is there any evidence for one, so we cannot find evidence that one does not exist to prove it. There is ZERO evidence that there isn't a flying homosexual Canadian woman goddess, but that doesn't mean there is one.

__________________

look youve never met me how do you know that you are talking to a human being right now??

I am glad you read Descartes...now how about the other 98% of my post? lol

__________________
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.
- James Freeman Clarke

It is an assumption. As the only thing I know of that can produce such a post would be another human being. All evidence collected shows that humans can produce posts, and there has yet to be evidence reveal itself that non humans make internet posts. This is not at all similar to the assumption that there is a god, because you believe, based on no factual evidence that only a god could create the universe.

__________________

They are all the same argument in different packaging, revolving around human conception of ideas, that they attribute to god, because they deny their own capability to create them. All are equally flawed.

The ideas come from the human mind, which is caused by a collection of cells, which is caused by the process of life, which is caused by the collection of molecules under specific circumstances. There doesn't need to be a god placing the ideas, there merely needs to be the life, to come up with the ideas.

__________________

I respectfully disagree with your position regarding this matter but I understand and support your right to your position one hundred and ten percent.

We will agree to disagree my friend.

__________________
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.
- James Freeman Clarke

The proponents of religion always fail to recognize that there were political reasons for the invention of god. What is the saying?

If there was no god, man would invent god.

The invention of god served the purposes of a few elite men that wanted power. It continues that way today.

\

your last statment i cant agree with. If you cant even see me but yet you use your intelligence to deduce that another human is typing these posts by studing the signs.. what signs?? these abcdef.... you see these letters put in an order following a law you look at how the letters as signs and you deduce automaticly that hey this is a human being without even seeing me, by looking at the order of letters you have strong faith that im a human being. Well buddy, if you look at the earth the same way how it is put together and how it follows a law it shows structure and intelligence but wait you cannot see the designer. But your own intelligence should right away point to an intelligent designer for like the letters the earth and universe is in order and follows laws and without even seeing God i have strong faith that their is one and it would be better for your intellect to see this as well.

No invention of God, this come from deep studing of the earth that you arrive at the conclusion that their is a God, now if you use that to gain world power then sooner or later you will fall. Constintene took christianity for the reason of having more power and look at what happened in the end Rome fell..much later on.