Just google Aquinas' truths about God. No robot here can say anything more than he did already.
Even then, however, I believe he does not participate whatsoever in human/earthly life. He created us and everything around, He is the first mover, but then at some point He also left us with free will and freedom to do anything we wish.

As an atheist, I believe the evidences for evolution are insufficient for scientific acceptance.

>>27510353
>there must be a cause of everything, this must be god

leap. of. faith.

>>27510416
Even though First Mover is the strongest argument it isn't the only one. Google Aquinas' truths, once more.

>>27510183
It doesn't matter if God exists or not

>>27510353
Aquinas' 5 ways are totally obsolete. There's nothing to indicate that we need a "first mover" at all; there is nothing wrong with infinite regression.

>>27510441
I have read it. He attributes all potential to a single actual, and he names it as an anthropomorphic-friendly, time-space continuum-based entity. A singular one with a coherent identity that humans can look up to. This is what we call a leap of faith.

Moreover, the argument is based entirely in faith in human perception of events as a static entity, even though with knowledge of the theory of relativity and the behavior of subatomic particles we know that isn't true.

>>27510554
>Haha, I know big words too!!
>sadly, senpai, I don't know how to use them in a coherent fashion. ;-;

t. Atheist

>>27510599
>I am Illiterate.
t. Christian

>>27510599
>I have read it. He attributes all potential to a single actual, and he names it as an anthropomorphic-friendly, time-space continuum-based entity. A singular one with a coherent identity that humans can look up to. This is what we call a leap of faith.

He believes that the creator cares about humans. He believes that the creator is omnipotent and omniscient. Couldn't an omnipotent creator make something that he has no control over? If he couldn't, that would technically be a limit on his creative abilities.

>Moreover, the argument is based entirely in faith in human perception of events as a static entity, even though with knowledge of the theory of relativity and the behavior of subatomic particles we know that isn't true.
Things change depending on whether or not we're paying attention to them. Things behave erratically and randomly with no regard for time or space. While the period right before the big bang is clear, we have no idea what is going on at the moment. I don't have a clear and simple understanding of quantum physics, but I know what quantum physicists are saying.

>>27510660
Careful, anon. You're letting your fedora out again.

The pre-cambrian explosion

>>27510660
You don't know what the "t." meme means, do you? I was an atheist telling you that you are misusing words for no good reason.

wew lad

>>27510183
dont you know anon? its all a placebo thing.
fake it till you make it theory.

>>27510183
you can't rationally demonstrate the existence of a supreme being that transcends rationality itself. it's a matter of faith.

>>27510697
No, that's not at all how quantum mechanics operates. It works like this: particles not observed exist theoretically, in a set of states based on its possible observers, until observed, in which it collapses into a position in physical space. An observer does not mean a conscious entity. An observer is anything capable of interacting with said particle.

>>27510183
"God" isn't even defined. "sky dude that does everything" is frequently switched to "the highest power there is" when questioned.

>>27510927
I mean, that's not really correct, but you're right in saying that he's totally misusing the concept to fit his silly religion.