No scientific proof of god

[TaraMaiden]

I think because after all your posts on here, nobody still knows what you want.

You either believe in God or you don't.

But you want proof he doesn't exist as well as proof that he does.

Some things are unconjecturable, and have no possibility of either being proven or disproven.

This is the most obvious thing of all.

[skydiveaddict]

So far, no one has proven god. When I ask a religious person for any evidence, all they tell me is to read the bible or to have faith.

Rest easy my friend. There is absolutely no physical evidence for the existence of God.

[TaxAHCruel]

I think because after all your posts on here, nobody still knows what you want.

 

Thats odd because I have mentioned a few times what I want. I want to be part of the discussion people are having here in relation to the scientific proof of god. And I want to stay on that topic rather than derail it or speak about me personally.

 

But you want proof he doesn't exist as well as proof that he does.

 

I do not recall saying that??

[TaraMaiden]

Meh...

 

I don't really care one way or the other, me....

I was merely expanding on dtj567's query.... as he's not here currently.

 

Probably off doing far more important things.

As I should be, but can't be arsed.....

[TaxAHCruel]

Indeed - and I hope my reply was sufficient to answer that query as I honestly can not think of what other answer to give. I am not trying to be opaque or obtuse - genuinely my only reason for being on the thread is it is a subject I enjoy discussing.

 

I had not realized people expected any more reason than that - for this OR any other thread on the forum.

[dtj567]

I just find it weird that an atheist would spend anytime talking about something they don't believe in. It's futile. So I was assuming some insecurity.

Edited June 13, 2013 by dtj567
Typo

[writergal]

I just find it weird that an atheist would spend anytime talking about something they don't believe in. It's futile. So I was assuming some insecurity.

 

I thought the same thing. I'm an Atheist and don't feel the need to argue/debate/discuss the existence of God via scientific proof. If someone wants to believe in God that's his/her choice.

 

It's a better question for an all-Atheist forum for obvious reasons.

[TaxAHCruel]

I just find it weird that an atheist would spend anytime talking about something they don't believe in. It's futile. So I was assuming some insecurity.

 

I do not think you need to believe in it to talk about it.

 

Firstly religion affects us all - a lot - even when you are not religious yourself. It permeates every level of our society horizontally and vertically. One can not avoid it.

 

Secondly just because I am not convinced there is a god does not mean there is not one. All we know for sure is we are here in this universe and we have no idea why. Discussing the possibilities is _fun_ and _interesting_.

 

Thirdly religion overlaps many things I am interested in. Science, psychology, politics, morality, ethics, sexuality, education, memetics and much much much much more.

 

Fourth in the evolution of ideas we will never progress unless all sides are articulately and skillfully aired. We need discourse on all sides throwing out ideas and defending them or debunking them so a form of "Natural Selection" can occur and the best ideas will come out on top.

 

I could go on and on and on for reasons that justify my motivation for taking part in such conversations. None of them in any way relate to insecurity.

[Eve]

Secondly just because I am not convinced there is a god does not mean there is not one. All we know for sure is we are here in this universe and we have no idea why. Discussing the possibilities is _fun_ and _interesting_.

 

Really? I thought you were an atheist?

 

I can relate to anyone considering the above bolded points but the impression I was getting is that this would NOT be the pattern of an atheist discussion.

 

Just suprised you would say this after my reading a couple of your posts where there is a confident poise that there is an absence of a higher power.

 

I thought the bolded would be more an agnostic type comment?

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Eve]

Atheism doesn't make any claim about whether there is a god or not. It's simply the lack of belief in any deity. I classify myself as an atheist, but I make no claims that no god exists. I don't need to. Theological claims have failed to convince me there is one.

 

I can only conclude that this is probably the aim but not once speech begins, lol.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[TaxAHCruel]

Really? I thought you were an atheist?

 

Was something I said incompatible with that position? I certainly do not see a contradiction there. However if it helps I can tell you that I do not use either of the words "agnostic" or "atheist" to describe myself. They are empty and confusing labels which achieve little more than getting people into long and boring debates over what each one means.

 

Our species is one that loves labels and other people like to label ME with those terms - and I have nothing particularly against that - but I do not use either of them myself except when I require a term of convenience in a long piece of prose.

 

where there is a confident poise that there is an absence of a higher power.

 

All I can say with certainty is that no one - despite me asking for 18+ years - has given even the first shred of a reason to think there is one. It appears that there simply is no reason whatsoever to subscribe to the notion that such an entity exists.

[Eve]

Was something I said incompatible with that position? I certainly do not see a contradiction there. However if it helps I can tell you that I do not use either of the words "agnostic" or "atheist" to describe myself. They are empty and confusing labels which achieve little more than getting people into long and boring debates over what each one means.

 

Our species is one that loves labels and other people like to label ME with those terms - and I have nothing particularly against that - but I do not use either of them myself except when I require a term of convenience in a long piece of prose.

 

 

 

All I can say with certainty is that no one - despite me asking for 18+ years - has given even the first shred of a reason to think there is one. It appears that there simply is no reason whatsoever to subscribe to the notion that such an entity exists.

 

To be as open as in the post I highlighted was interesting but really (come come now) it is disingenuous; you already do have theories etc which you hold to. Whether you call yourself an agnostic or atheist is by the by.

 

The chasm of contradiction remains within the triangulation process; whether or not the subject matter is included within the process. Otherwise the conversation really is all just a bit of a ruse. The end point made by yourself qualifies this; no one has shown you any reason such an entity exists. If you were to have included the subject matter within the triangulation process this can only be the means by which you can answer this question... for yourself.

 

You see being rational still does not make nature your philosophical playground because the observations are just that; for nature itself is not rational and as such it's boundaries cannot be said to not hold to or be created from super nature.

 

Hence I find the question of scientifically finding God to be a very strange question. What do they want to find? A holy toe nail? The expanse occurs when we come to God or are party to the will of God. H'mmm.. one could use experiential means to document this process I suppose, as observation is a valid tool within scientific enquiry. We have learned so much about the lived experience from this mode of investigation.

 

So I see little point if someone doesn't want to use the ways prescribed to search for God and does not accept the testimonies of those who have come to God stating .. well, anything about God.

 

IDK, stick to observing nature then. Also possibly look into humanism.

 

But no, it's just a ruse if the subject matter is not respected in the first instance.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[TaxAHCruel]

To be as open as in the post I highlighted was interesting but really (come come now) it is disingenuous

 

There is nothing disingenuous about explaining exactly who and what I am. If you want me to be conform to your expectations and see my failure to do so as "disingenuous" then so be it - but it is your problem not mine.

 

As I said I find the topic an interesting one and I talk about it often - but I do not subscribe to the labels "Atheist" or "Agnostic" for many reasons. Not the least of which is that so many people have conflicting views of what the words even mean - and the conversations arguing out their definitions are long - boring - and ultimately useless.

 

I am a person who simply does not subscribe to unsubstantiated claims. The claim there is a god is entirely unsubstantiated. Therefore I do not subscribe to it. If you want to label that - have at it. I do not however.

 

Nor am I limiting myself to scientific proof in that. That is what the thread is about so that is what I am discussing specifically in that thread. But I have not seen ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god - of any type - least of all scientific.

[Eve]

There is nothing disingenuous about explaining exactly who and what I am. If you want me to be conform to your expectations and see my failure to do so as "disingenuous" then so be it - but it is your problem not mine.

 

As I said I find the topic an interesting one and I talk about it often - but I do not subscribe to the labels "Atheist" or "Agnostic" for many reasons. Not the least of which is that so many people have conflicting views of what the words even mean - and the conversations arguing out their definitions are long - boring - and ultimately useless.

 

I am a person who simply does not subscribe to unsubstantiated claims. The claim there is a god is entirely unsubstantiated. Therefore I do not subscribe to it. If you want to label that - have at it. I do not however.

 

Nor am I limiting myself to scientific proof in that. That is what the thread is about so that is what I am discussing specifically in that thread. But I have not seen ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god - of any type - least of all scientific.

 

It's ok. You do not understand what I stated and you are making this personal.

 

The triangulation process you are using is at fault because it only includes yourself. That is why you are being disingenuous at the core.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[therhythm]

Yes there is no scientific proof that God exists but there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist either.

Why do you guys have the need to convince the others about your personal beliefs? I don't believe in God but I respect people who does... it is their choice and their life and as long as they don't try to impose me their doctrine who am I to tr to impose them my beliefs?

 

You can be discussing around this topic for ever and it will be always status quo as there is no proof for either of both ot the stands taken here...

Edited June 19, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

It's ok. You do not understand what I stated and you are making this personal.

 

Pretending I do not understand something when I do is just a cop out. I am not the one making this personal. At all. I was discussing the topic and suddenly over the last page or so of posts people - yourself included - have been making it about me. Questioning not just me - but why I am on the thread at all - and more.

 

So find a mirror because you are accusing others of what only you are engaged in. From getting personal, to being disingenuous, to failing to understand things.

 

I am happy to return to the _actual topic of the thread_ any time you want to / are able to. If however you want to pretend I do not understand things I actually do - then you are just talking with yourself essentially.

[TaxAHCruel]

Yes there is no scientific proof that God exists but there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist either.

 

Of course there is not. Nor does there need to be. The onus is solely on the people saying there is a god to substantiate that claim. There is no onus on those who fail to believe the claim to prove the negative.

 

Further the claim there is no god is what is called an "unfalsifiable negative" and as such the scientific method simply can not be applied. One can not prove an unfalsifiable negative in Science.

 

Why do you guys have the need to convince the others about your personal beliefs?

 

Who says we do? Someone started a thread on an interesting subject and different people are discussing different sides of that topic. Where does this "need" you imagine come into it? I do not see it.

 

The whole point of discussion, discourse and debate is to take a side and discuss / defend / support it. That is what conversation is about. So rather than asking us what our need is - ask yourself what your need is to rush into such conversations and deride the act of even having it.

 

The conversation here is repeated by uncountable 1000s all over the world every day. While each individual conversation might seem worthless and pointless to you - like turning off the tap while brushing your teeth is hardly going to save the worlds water supply - it is discourse in unison across our species that changes the world.

 

I don't believe in God but I respect people who does

 

Indeed. I respect the PEOPLE too. I respect people. Not ideas. Ideas are not to be respected. The people who hold them are. Do not make the (all to common) error of conflating the two and act like attacking or unpacking an _idea_ is the same thing as attacking the person who holds it.

 

While many people - generally those who have no arguments to substantiate their position on a given topic - play the offence card and pretend to be offended vicariously on behalf of their ideas - there is no reason to pander to this. At all.

 

You can be discussing around this topic for ever and it will be always status quo

 

If you say so - and if that is your belief then why even enter this thread at all let alone post on it. Why not just skip over it?

 

However I am not so pessimistic and I think every conversation - no matter how small and insignificant it might appear to you - becomes part of a greater whole and a slow - but consistent - change in the zeitgeist surrounding religion.

 

Why it is so important to some that conversation not be had at all on the subject at all - to the point that you would enter a thread you have no interest in and attempt to stiffle it - both baffles me and arouses my suspicions - but while an interesting phenomenon in itself I certainly will not be pandering to it either.

[therhythm]

 

Why it is so important to some that conversation not be had at all on the subject at all - to the point that you would enter a thread you have no interest in and attempt to stiffle it - both baffles me and arouses my suspicions - but while an interesting phenomenon in itself I certainly will not be pandering to it either.

 

I find tedious and unrespectful the fact that some people who believe they have the real and only truth are trying to push that truth unto others... I see as much fanaticism in the new atheist as I see it in many of the religious folks...in fact I see atheism is becoming the new religion where either you adhere or you are wrong...

 

I am agnostic (totally!) but I don't pretend my way to see life is the right one or the only one, nor I pretend to convince others of how wrong their beliefs are.... specially when you don't have any more proof to make your point than the other faction has....

 

I would like to turn back the question to you... why it is so important for you that other people agree with you and live their spirituality as you do?

The arrogance of some people baffles me... they seem to find themselves enlighten by the truth and look down to the ones who do not follow their own dogmas.... does that kind of behavior ring the bell? Yes... it is the same thing than religious fanatics do... and exactly what you do...

 

The funny thing is that in one sentence you are telling me how people should not get offended when someone attacks their ideas and in the next one how baffled and annoying you find my comment because it does not go along with what you think... you should make up your mind...

 

By the way...usually the one who is trying to make a point is the one who need to bring the proofs that validate that point... since you are the one trying to make a point on the non existence of GOD... I can and I am expecting your proofs I am not trying to proof that God exists as I actually don't care if you believe He exists or not...

 

I have no problem with people discussing the viability of religion and the existence of God if that is done with an open minded and in a respectful way but people who undermined other people beliefs and find themselves better illustrated and with a higher capacity of recognizing the truth are often blind to other peoples ideas and approaches and that is the reason why I felt I needed to say something rather than spiking the thread.

 

You say you only respect people but not ideas... well some ideas and believes are intricate inseparable from some persons as those people define themselves on the way they live their spirituality and their believes... you can't respect one without respecting the other one... in fact they would feel much more offended if you insult their believes than if you insult them personally... but you know already that and have chosen to walk over it...

 

You don't necessarily need to think an idea is correct but if that idea represents a group of persons the minimum that a civilized intelligent persons should do is respect that idea... and from that respect you can chose to question it... but only from the respect!

 

By the way... you say you don't label yourself as atheist or agnostic ... maybe you don't do so by defining yourself with a concrete word but you do that by your actions and ideas.

 

Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. can you tell me how your ideas about the existence of God differ from that clear definition?

Edited June 19, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

I find tedious and unrespectful the fact that some people who believe they have the real and only truth are trying to push that truth unto others...

 

And I find it tedious to hear that repeated over and over even when no such thing is happening. As I said we are merely having a conversation here and I - for example - am merely pointing out the simple fact that I have not once been shown any argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even lends a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god. That is just a fact - it is not some campaign of claiming I have some ultimate truth.

 

I see as much fanaticism in the new atheist

 

I think XKCD had you in mind then.

 

why it is so important for you that other people agree with you

 

Where did I claim it was? In fact did you even read the part of my last post which started "Who says we do?" where I explain exactly my answer to this question? Try reading it - or would doing so cause you to miss the chance to call people "arrogant" and "fanatic"?

 

Whatever you do not let my actual position on matters get in the way of you inventing one for me so you can play your record on it.

 

By the way...usually the one who is trying to make a point is the one who need to bring the proofs that validate that point... since you are the one trying to make a point on the non existence of GOD... I can and I am expecting your proofs

 

Bull. Again the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate their position. So those claiming there is a god need to substantiate it. All my position is so far is that they have entirely failed to do so. The only evidence I need to support that position is the fact that they have entirely failed to do so.

 

I would certainly advise you to avoid philisophical discourse however if you can not even get the basics like Burden Of Proof correct however. It would be like discussing football when you do not even know the shape of a ball.

 

you can't respect one without respecting the other one... in fact they would feel much more offended if you insult their believes than if you insult them personally... but you know already that and have chosen to walk over it...

 

As I said - if people choose to get offended vicariously on behalf of their own beliefs then that is their choice not mine and there is no onus on me to pander to this. I respect people not ideas and if people want to pretend I should do the opposite they yes - I will "walk over it" - and feel no guilt in doing so.

 

The "respect" and "offence" card is just a move people play to shield unsubstantiated nonsense from the purview of rationality. If such beliefs were entirely innocuous then I would perhaps begin to consider pandering to that - but they are not.

 

you say you don't label yourself as atheist or agnostic ... maybe you don't do so by defining yourself with a concrete word but you do that by your actions and ideas.

 

And as I said if people like you want to append a label to that then I have no issue with this at all. I merely do not use them myself. I merely identify myself as someone who dismisses unsubstantiated claims and resists their application in our halls of power, education and science. That is all.

 

So yes, GIVEN that the claim there is a god is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by even a modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend it even an iota of credence then yes I reject the claim there is a god.

 

If you want to call me "atheist" because of that then have at it. But why stop there? There are any number of a- words you could apply to me from a-racist to a-astrologer to a-homeopathist to a-psychicist to a-UFOist to much much much much much much more.

 

The fact you would arbitrarily choose one single a- word over the 100000s of others that could equally accurately apply to me shows that religion is clearly more important to you than you give credit for.

 

I however prefer to label myself by what I AM not by what I am NOT. For example if asked my skin color I say "White" not "Not Black". I am "human" not "not a giraffe".

 

Why the need to label yourself or anyone else in the negative?

[therhythm]

 

 

Bull. Again the onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate their position. So those claiming there is a god need to substantiate it. All my position is so far is that they have entirely failed to do so. The only evidence I need to support that position is the fact that they have entirely failed to do so.

 

 

And you have failed to proof that it doesn't exist and that is where I stand . Actually if you believe or not in God is totally irrelevant for me... But the fact that you need to come and tell the people who actually believe in Him that there is no proof of it existence is what borders me... I wonder why you have such a need of confrontation.

 

 

I am not going to answer to anything else from your post ans I don't want to make a contest about this... you seem to have a fair position where you don't believe anything that has not been proof scientifically... you therefore should not believe in the life it self because can you scientifically explain me how the world was created? Who initiated the explosions in the universe that created our world? If you can explain that scientifically to me then I am happy to say you are right if not any explanation or lack of explanation is as good for me as the other

Edited June 20, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

And you have failed to proof that it doesn't exist

 

Why would I attempt to prove a position I have not espoused? I think you are so keen to type a post on a forum with the word "failed" in it - that the best you can rustle up is to point out my failure to defend a position I am not espousing - which is beyond desperate.

 

My position - once again since you want to misrepresent it - is the dismissal of - and the resistance of the application of - unsubstantiated claims - and the claim there is a god is not just slightly but entirely unsubstantiated.

 

What part of THAT position you feel I have "Failed to prove" is entirely opaque to me and - I am beginning to suspect - to you too.

 

the fact that you need to come and tell the people who actually believe in Him that there is no proof of it existence is what borders me...

 

I know nothing of your borders - but as I said many times already this is a discussion forum and someone started a discussion. I merely joined it because I find the discussion an interesting one. So the "need" you are imagining here is entirely of your own imagination.

 

There is no "need for confrontation" here. I merely joined an interesting discussion. That is what people do on message boards. I wonder at your need to go into a thread you have no real interest in and attack people for partaking in the discussion at all. You seem to be living a case of "If I am not interested in discussing it - no one else should be either" which is a pedestal I can happily advise you get off.

 

you seem to have a fair position where you don't believe anything that has not been proof scientifically...

 

The important word here being "seem" as that is not what I said. I very specifically said - and I am beginning now to wonder how much of what I write you actually read - that I in no way limit myself to scientific discourse. THIS thread is about science therefore I have written mostly about that - but I have pointed out more than once that this is not the limit to my discourse on such matters.

 

Nothing in what I have written even suggests that I limit myself only to things proven scientifically so why it "seems" this way to you can only be because you seem more intent on imagining things about me throughout your posts rather than actually learning them directly.

 

you therefore should not believe in the life it self because can you scientifically explain me how the world was created?

 

What a totally ridiculous statement. Are you even trying to be serious now? You honestly thing that if you do not understand 100% everything about how X came to be that therefore you should not believe X exists? What a truly fantastical world you must live in.

 

Who initiated the explosions in the universe that created our world?

 

By phrasing the question "Who" you automatically are assuming some kind of deistic or theistic response here. Why does it have to be a "Who"? The deist position is that there is some non human intelligence responsible for the creation and / or subsequent maintenance of our universe. That position is entirely unsubstantiated. The simple fact is that we have currently no answers - though many hypotheses - as to why there is a universe with us in it. It is an open question.

 

Some of those hypothesis are based on actual evidence and substantiation. Some - like "God did it" however are not. Not even slightly. So let us not create a false equivalence between such hypothesis as if any one is as good as any other.

[therhythm]

 

And before you ask, yes I think my "doctrine" of teaching children to think for themselves, evaluate all evidence and come to a conclusion is superior to telling them that a book contains the truth and to not question it because otherwise they will suffer for eternity.

 

and that makes you exactly the same than they are... funny thing is that they are as convinced to posses the real truth as you are... so let sit and wach the "I am right and you are wrong" match while it happens... status quo will prevail for centuries to come...

 

Will you not use your own knowledge and experience to teach your children or will you let them grow wild and experience life by themselves without the influence of your moral values and society rules? Will you send them to schools where they will learn from books where teachers will tell them to learn from those books or get punished by getting reproved?

 

It is funny how many people who preach against the existence of God are doing exactly the same than the pastors who preach the existence of Him...

 

Really fun to watch from a total neutral perspective...

Edited June 20, 2013 by therhythm

[M30USA]

Thunder was not god's anger, or god showing his power, the rainbow is not a symbol of god's friendship with his creation.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." (Psalm 19:1)

 

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

 

If you are talking about every single lightning strike as being a direct, traceable sign of God's "anger", then I might agree with you that this isn't the case. However, powerful forces of nature are clearly an indicator of God's attributes. He is powerful and terrifying. (Yet he is also loving and merciful--which can be seen in various areas of nature, as well.)

[pie2]

...forces of nature are clearly an indicator of God's attributes. He is powerful and terrifying. (Yet he is also loving and merciful--which can be seen in various areas of nature, as well.)

 

Completely agree. We may "know" how things work, but we don't know why things are (without God's wisdom). The 'why' certainly doesn't stop at "because of atoms, chemicals, and energy". Life is much, much deeper and mysterious than that!!

[TaxAHCruel]

This country and most other countries are filled with religious indoctrinations

 

Indeed. Why only in the last hours do we hear a story from the US telling us that a resident of the US - permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years - was told that her application for citizenship would be denied if she did not join a church.

 

and that makes you exactly the same than they are

 

No. It does not. Espousing positions based on argument evidence data and reasoning is not the same as espousing positions that are unsubstantiated and pulled out of the air.

 

They might think their current position is right and I might think my current position is right but there alone the equivalence ends because there simply is no other comparison between substantiated and unsubstantiated positions. It is like saying apples are the same as oranges because they are both vaguely spherical.

 

However welcome to the real world. It might bother you that people choose a position and defend it believing it is right - but build a bridge and get over it because we all do that. Not just in the realm of religion - but also in politics, education, medicine, diet, and many other subjects one can name.

 

So at the end of the day all that is happening here is a person (you) who has an issue with people choosing a side and defending it in the religion debate - has willfully and intentionally opened a thread where that very thing happens - and started moaning that seeing that kind of thing happen upsets them. It makes as much sense as going into a bar and complaining that you do not like seeing people drink alcohol. If you do not like seeing it - do not specifically take yourself to places where it happens and your delicate sensibilities will remain unmolested.

 

status quo will prevail for centuries to come

 

I do not share that pessimistic and unsubstantiated view point. Quite the opposite in fact as secularism is on the rise in many countries - atheism is the fastest growing minoritiy in places like the US - in my own home country of Ireland we see churches dying off and closing down and being repossesed because they can not afford repayments any more - with all time low numbers of catholic priests coming alongside warnings that they will be extinct in the coming decade - while most of the figures for the religious are coming from numbers heavily weighted towards the older soon to be dead generations - and any other number of signs that the zeitgeist is changing massively.

 

Change is slow yes - and I do not expect to see the level of change I would like within my life time. I do not however measure my expectations in terms of "centuries" however but in generations and not all too many of them either.

 

However, powerful forces of nature are clearly an indicator of God's attributes.

 

Only because you declare by fiat that that is gods attributes. It is a floating definition. All you are saying is "God is whatever god needs to be to match what it is I observe every day". As such you are merely defining "god" as "All of everything no matter what that is".

 

In other words it is an empty definition that says everything while saying precisely nothing.

 

However when you throw in words like "he" "loving" and "merciful" you are clearly indicating more than your empty definition. You are indicating the existence of an intelligent, intentional, wilful, designing entity for which you have not just little - but quite literally no - substantiation for. You are simply anthropomorphising the world around you and acting like that is QED.

 

We may "know" how things work, but we don't know why things are (without God's wisdom).

 

I wholeheartidly agree that there are many open questions we do not have answers to. That does not mean there is a god however. That is a complete non-sequitur.

 

Our inability to explain some things is evidence of nothing except our inability to explain some things.