There is no evidence for God

Building 7 dropped contrary to the laws of physics on 9/11. So did World trade centers 1 & 2. Does that mean the laws of physics no longer stand? Or does it mean there must be another reason for them dropping?

I would urge you to look into the construction of the buildings keeping in mind that the steel used in the supporting "hooks" that held the floors began to distort at 800 degrees. Also, what for me is evidence against a conspiracy is that there is not one piece of physical evidence that supports one. The absolute clencher of an argument is the number of people involved in ANY of the theories. Spouses WOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD. Offspring would know about it. Conspirators would have told siblings. HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF IT, yet nobody has ever said a word despite the riches they would receive. Going on 20 yrs. and no deathbed confessions even with thousands killed? This alone makes a conspiracy very unlikely.

The debris field from the towers deposited tons of debris on building 7. Are you aware that many smaller buildings in the debris field had to be razed for fear of collapse. Recall on television the amount of dust everywhere. It looked to be ashes but it wasn't ash it was concrete dust which is very heavy. a very small volume of it would constitute a ton easily.

Funny that isn't it?

What is funny is that you have made a claim that the laws of physics were broken and have failed to provide any kind of evidence or explanation for this outlandish claim. You have clearly been reading too many conspiracy theories and you have no real understanding yourself. This alone tells us a great deal, and your claim that you know that a god exists can be treated with the contempt it deserves.

By that logic you might as well believe unicorns and magic elves exist

By that logic you might as well believe unicorns and magic elves exist

I wouldn't say I'm a theist or an atheist, perhaps an agnostic, but I feel like there's a lot more too it than whether there is evidence or not. I prefer, even though he was a Catholic theologian, to consider Aquinas' criticisms of many rationalist arguments which said that it is impossible to know whether or not a God exists because we have only ever experienced anything inside our universe and if he does exist and has all the properties we would consider of a God (e.g. transcendence) then he exists outside our universe and that means it becomes something we can't really every understand.

You can choose to take this in either direction, be it that if we can't understand it then he probably doesn't exist or it's just not worth trying to understand or you can use it as a reason to believe there is something more but, lest to say, to many people, belief in a God or multiple gods is something more than just experience or empirical evidence.

Saying that god can act contrary to the laws of physics would be oxymoronic.

The laws of physics define the limits of nature.

I'm not sure you got Aquinas right there. Aquinas thought you could give strong arguments for the existence of God but that our knowledge of the essence of God is foggy (hence his insistence on analogical language).

Posted from TSR Mobile

So why do people still believe in God?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Anyone who doubts Biblical statements has only to visit the real places and meet people there to verify the evidence by themselves.

God is not verifiable or falsifiable according to our limited human knowledge. What would be the point of faith if you already knew that answer to whether there is or isn't a God? Atheists will always say that there isn't a God whereas someone of faith will always say there is. Nothing can be considered to be a brute fact; especially when there is no verified evidence against the existence of God. However scientists in this century are now beginning to question whether the big bang did actually happen in the way that they thought...mull over that idea that all of your perceptions about how the world was formed are wrong