What does, "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" mean, exactly? If you want me to prove the existence of a spiritual realm with human apprehension, it's not possible. I can't necessarily prove that the moon isn't made of cheese, but I can somewhat assume it isn't because there aren't any mice trying to get there. I can't draw you a picture of God, but I can assume He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn't just accomplish itself. If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it's not tenable. Saying "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" is just cognitive dissonance, nothing more. That's an easy position to take in order to escape a difficult reality. ("I can't prove or disprove this raging fire exists, therefore I need not throw any water on it.")
And exactly how is the intellect non-corporeal?
What elements are it composed of? How many atoms? Neutrons, electrons, protons? Can you hold it in your hand, see it with your eyes, sense it by touch, smell, sound, color. If you went to the police and said, "I just got mugged by some guy's intellect!", how would you identify it in a lineup?
“If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it’s not tenable.”
The major problem with the First Mover argument is that it begs the question “Who moved the mover?”
“He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn’t just accomplish itself.”
This is a huge assumption on your part considering that it is actually impossible to know what existed before the Big
Bang. Also, it has been shown that events on the quantum scale actually do not require causes in order for those events to occur.
“Saying “it doesn’t prove or disprove anything” is just cognitive dissonance”
This is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the ability to believe or hold two contradicting thoughts simultaneously.
My assertion was that evil is comprehensible with or without a belief in God.
You stated that Evil is only comprehensible if there is a God.
I asked you to prove that. You haven't.
If you want me to prove the existence of a spiritual realm with human apprehension, it's not possible.
But you just stated in absolutes that God does exist.
I can't necessarily prove that the moon isn't made of cheese, but I can somewhat assume it isn't because there aren't any mice trying to get there.
False analogy.
I can't draw you a picture of God, but I can assume He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn't just accomplish itself.
I wouldn't presume to know.
If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it's not tenable.
"The universe is closed" - I don't necessarily believe that but, that's the rebuttal.
Saying "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" is just cognitive dissonance, nothing more.
Look up "cognitive dissonance."
That's an easy position to take in order to escape a difficult reality. ("I can't prove or disprove this raging fire exists, therefore I need not throw any water on it.")
Again, a false comparison. But to use your analogy for my original statement: I don't need to know how the fire started to recognize it's there....and that I should put it out.