Yet the factual science that I have shown you, which proves God exists, trumps all that theoretical science, that nobody knows exists the way the theories state. You would rather have the make-believe than the reality.
You haven't actually shown any factual science, just your own unprovable hypotheses and incomprehensible jargon. You still don't have a proof that god exists.
I've shown you the proof over and over.
No you haven't. I understand your ideas quite well, but they're not science and not factual.
But since you don't understand it, no wonder you don't understand that you haven't proven God to NOT exist.
So you set yourself up with god-strength by saying that God doesn't exist, when, even with your poor understanding of things, even you understand that He might exist. Then you shoot yourself in the foot (head) by saying god/you doesn't exist.
There is no need to prove God doesn't exist. What's the need?
Bertrand russell illustrates why, but simply put the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Otherwise, why not start with the tooth fairy? Or invisible pink unicorns? Can you prove either don't exist?
If you had been only agnostic, you might have a sliver of an excuse. But no. You have to stick to the faith of your religion, atheism, even though you are contradicting yourself all the way through it.
I don't have faith in a religion. You call me atheist because I often argue against organised religion, but the truth is I just don't care about the supernatural. I do however care about logic and truth, so if you really need to label me with a religion, call it Truth or Logic, not Atheism.
I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.
