Bravo, Dean. Bravo!!!
This is the point that so many in the opposition refuse to discuss or debate, countering only with a weak semantic trick such as "you can't know the unknowable" as though the insinuation that the topic of the nature of the first cause is beyond human comprehension protects the unknowable from analysis.
Or 'You can't prove a negative'. As if contextual knowledge about me being in Toledo is not sufficient to know that I am not in Miami. The law of identity, that which on all proof resides, is enough to know that god is not possible. We cannot and need not invoke science. Only reason. Not knowing what we don't know is not an open door to mysticism, but an impetus to do more exploring of this causal realm. Anything we find is necessarily not god. And then they play the stolen phoneme game, 'Well, how do you know what god is to me doesn't exist? Nature, or consciousness or physical laws or everything is god.' Yeah, well we have words for those concepts already.
Only reason is required. The argument of infinite regress trumps any claim that God lies beyond human comprehension and logic. For example, What created a God beyond human comprehension and logic?
It could have been Cthulhu! You never know for certain! Cthulhu and modern theoretical particle physics trump reason!! Have you ever heard of what these new scientists, that publish papers at universities, are finding in their particle accelerators? It's called quantum de-coherence and non-locality! And it means that god could exist for sure, but we cannot prove it so, I guess I don't know, but I do know that you don't know, of that I am sure, that you can't be sure, for certain. I'm positive!
I do not think that quantum de-coherence and non-locality say any thing about or agianst the existence and nature of God unless God is a quantum phenomena, in which case it wouldn't really be God.
Right-e-o! Damn, I thought I fooled you with my quantum phantasmagoria and gobbledy-gook.
Now that you know that I know perhaps we can have a real conversation.
Are you into quantum phantasmagoria and gobbledy-gook? Why?
Cue theramin. *waves hands in a gyrating fashion*
I like your reasoning. I have a theory of natural meaning, purpose, causality. A honey bee gets up in the morning, rubs its hands together and thinks, "where's the food?" or "where's the water?" or "where's the sex?" and flies away sticking his proboscis into every flower it can find, in the process, finding food and water and pollinating flora all around it. He also finds a mate now and then. That is the natural theory of meaning ...
Erm, I believe that honeybees (at least the workers who go out foraging) are female. As usual the women are doing all the work while the males sit at home making noise.