Proof of god’s existence

Nov 4, 2013


Discussion by: melaleuca

I was watching Richard Dawkins in discussion with Peter Boghossian (24/10/13) when they were asked “what would it take for them to believe God exists?” I watched as 2 keen intellects lapsed into silent speculation, and the crowd giggled at this “tableaux” (– no heavens opening, nor doves with branches; not a single heavenly note! God missed a fantastic opportunity right there!).Richard and Peter quickly canvassed some “proof of proprietorship” in terms of coded digits in number sequences amongst other possibilities.

For me, proof of God’s existence would be more easily established by a manifestation of the impossible.  Like giant billboards appearing over our cities saying: “Sinners, repent!! God Inc.  Pty Ltd”.

Means of support? None.  Source of light energy? Glows at night, therefore none.

Construction material? Nothing tangible.  Able to be masked?  No.

Must be God!  But wait – didn’t Arthur C Clarke say “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?”

Damn! Maybe not God after all!!

God can't give proof of his/her existence, because there are grubby little humans who follow the line of "doubting Thomas" and who want to know that their senses are not lying to them; and who then want to know the mechanism by which we are able to perceive "god". 

173 comments on “Proof of god’s existence

  • 1
    SaganTheCat says:

    The problem (other than the initial problem of the definition of god) is trying to find a single bit of evidence. it simply won’t be enough. any proof needs to stand up against everything we accept as reality. A code in the genes of all living things might prove something conscious created life but say’s nothing about the creation of matter.

    This is why atheists like me come across as arrogant and close-minded. we’ll apparently reject arguments out of hand but only because those arguments just aren’t big enough, they leave a whole heap of much bigger questions begging than they could hope to address.

    but even if you could overcome all this, define god, and convnce me he/she exists, I’d still ask how it works



    Report abuse

  • 2
    God fearing Atheist says:

    The invisible sky fairy is far too grand an imaginary entity for any one piece of evidence, or even a container ship full of evidence, to substantiate.

    Suppose it turned out that 10,000 devote followers of could pray for a year and increase the probability of 100 people recovering from a given disease by 5%. There would be something going on. Some apparent action at a distance, or some strange placebo effect that needs explanation. The faithful might be delighted, but suppose the faithful claimed that their magic friend also created the universe. The healing might give evidence for an advanced alien intelligence, but it does not give any evidence that the alien intelligence created the universe.

    The claims for most gods are so diverse that no one piece of evidence can ever substantiate them all. Each piece of evidence should be used as a small part of the validation for each detail of the claims. We might discover a benevolent super-advanced alien race. But how do you go about substantiating the aliens created the universe, and/or are omnipotent?



    Report abuse

  • 3
    SelfAwarePatterns says:

    My response to this type of question is
    1) unambiguous evidence for the effectiveness of prayer
    2) unambiguous evidence for any supernatural event, ever
    3) information in scripture an ancient society couldn’t have known
    4) unambiguous evidence of purpose in nature



    Report abuse

  • We could receive evidence of the existence of a being more powerful than any other. However, a problem comes in when we want to check the attributes against a specific designation, say the three “omni” attributes of the Christian three part deity. No matter how much power is demonstrated we can’t tell if that is “all powerful” (we would have to know the bounds of “all” which we can’t without knowing everything, ourselves) and the same goes for omniscience and omnibenevolence. If you limit yourself to just evidence for a creator deity, you still get the same problem because it will always be more likely that a being has also come along from natural causes and is making the false claim.



    Report abuse

  • 5
    Simon Tuffen says:

    If God were the perfect omnipotent entity that it’s so important to believe in, as religionists typically claim, it would ensure there would be no debate or doubt as to its existence.

    Or, if a perfect omnipotent had a reason for there to be debate and doubt as to its existence, then we are obliging its desires.

    Either way, atheists win and religionists lose.



    Report abuse

  • 7
    Alan4discussion says:

    For me, proof of God’s existence would be more easily established by a manifestation of the impossible.

    I think the evidence is going to come from neuro-psychologists- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm
    ..But when the long-hidden little gods (or if you prefer “god-spots”), are finally irrevocably identified in believers’ brains. They are not going to resemble any of the ancient religious god-claims and they are not going to be omniscient or hiding in distant parts of the universe even if their delusionally projected image is!
    As at the cinema, you know it is just an image when you identify the projector!



    Report abuse

  • 8
    Mr DArcy says:

    Next year’s sports results, share prices, exchange rates etc. published today in all known media and written large in the sky by a divine hand. OK, it will take over a year to decide if they were right by which time most people will have, quite rightly, forgotten them !

    Jeez it’s hard to prove you’re a god !



    Report abuse

  • 9
    godzillatemple says:

    The problem for me is that, for a being supposedly capable of creating the entire universe out of nothing (not to mention all life), simple parlor tricks won’t suffice. Don’t just walk on water of turn water to wine. Create a planet out nothingness and I might be impressed a bit. Show me that you can read my mind and can not only bring the dead back to life but also create new life ex nihilo. Bring back my loved ones that have passed on so that I may speak to them and ask what it’s really like on the other side.

    In other words, do something actually Godlike. I may still have doubts as to whether you are the God, but I’d at least be willing to believe you are a God and be willing to show you due deference and reverence.



    Report abuse

  • Even if we found out something created us do we really want to worship it? I mean, if it’s a hands-on God like people keep saying he is, he’s not really doing diddly as far as I can see except put out an awesome video every few months on YouTube.



    Report abuse

  • The issue is not “a god” but Jehovah. Nobody cares if Zeus exists. What matters is feeling righteous about tormenting homosexuals with divine blessing. What matters is that the Muslims were wrong. What matters is that the bible is inerrant.

    So I would say some strong evidence that the universe is 6000 years old after all, that there was no evolution, finding evidence for Noah’s global flood. DNA evidence that 6000 years ago all species were strangled down to two individuals, finding deuterium-powered titanium water pushers buried in the Red Sea. Finding out that eating owl is indeed the cause of civilisation collapse. Building a model of the Ark Of the Convent turns out to be a free energy machine.



    Report abuse

  • 12
    OrbitalNZ says:

    In reply to #6 by Michael Austin:

    I think if aliens followed a similar religion it would at least present a good challenge to my atheism.

    Or we were the victim’s of Alien Missionaries that have come before an planted seeds to our own religions.

    However I just fall back on, If an “All Powerful God” exists and your belief was important to that God then you would simply believe. Proof would be unimportant.

    The fact that you don’t means:
    a.) God does not care if you believe. or b.) such a God doesn’t exist.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Kataryn says:

    Wouldn’t disproof of a Creator be a better argument? -if there was a creator, that being has the burden of proof, in making a positive claim of existing, true?

    Unless I’m illogical: (and please correct me!) Could we not simply by process of elimination cross off each contender as being “dead” what criteria would I use off hand?

    •do they have followers?

    •do their worshippers follow the respective texts?
    (What kind of god can’t enforce his will)
    •are the worshipers known for morality, or hypocracy?

    •do the worshippers as an organization admit faults publicaly? Do they print retractions.of dogmatic.error, misquotes, etc?

    •or do they:
    °misquote
    °truncate quotes
    °quote out of context/misrepresent authors intent

    I’ve been pondering this question for some time, and I’m sure philosophers have hammered out the problems. Can anyone help add t my list?



    Report abuse

  • We have the bible, God’s Word.
    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature.
    Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Nature itself is a witness to God.
    Anyway, the Bible tells us that we’re not going to see Him before He comes again and is not silent about invisibility.



    Report abuse

  • 15
    rkher531 says:

    I have a more simpler method. Posit a creator of say Big Bang and then show how this universe came into being, how the laws of physics were formed and how the earth came and how we humans were evolved to. You cannot posit more than just a creator. Any forces must be what is known now.



    Report abuse

  • 18
    Pabmusic says:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word. The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature. Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Nature itself is a witness to God. Anyway, the Bible tells us that we’re not going to see Him before He comes again and is not silent about invisibility.

    It would be interesting to try to understand why you believe that any of that is true. At the moment you are just quoting a mantra that you obviously accept. Please help us by saying why any of us should believe it as well.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    The miracles Jesus did …

    They are very trivial by modern standards. Raising the dead? It’s routine medical and para-medical procedure.



    Report abuse

  • 20
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.

    Perhaps you should study the history of “The Bible”!

    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature. Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory of God”.

    But that is only an ancient myth!

    Nature itself is a witness to God.

    There are many such claims for many different gods, but no supporting evidence!

    Anyway, the Bible tells us that we’re not going to see Him before He comes again and is not silent about invisibility.

    The bible is a collection of myths. It shows numerous conflicts with historical records, and its books often contradict each other.

    You need to read some non-fiction books about history and science.



    Report abuse

  • 21
    SoundGuyLuke says:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.
    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature.

    Sorry, what’s wrong with my heart?



    Report abuse

  • I don’t think proof that prayer helps healing would be evidence of a god, any more that proof that eating tetracycline heals some diseases.

    What is prayer? A group of people get together and wish that someone be healed. You don’t need a god. Whom this request is formally addressed to is probably immaterial. It may depend on certainly the deity addressed will comply. Perhaps there is some strange quantum effect of brains getting in sync and warping reality. You don’t need the full trappings of a god, complete with commanding Abraham to butcher Issac.

    But this is highly hypothetical. Despite endless wishful thinking, I think we are now pretty sure prayer does not have any effect.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #3 by SelfAwarePatterns:

    3) information in scripture an ancient society couldn’t have known

    Prankster using a time machine or prankster alien would be much less bizarre an explanation than a full blown god with all manner of magical properties. You don’t use the CERN accelerator when a nutcracker would do.

    I suspect other than direct contact with the god and ability to interact, any other “evidence” would have simpler explanations.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.
    Lots of people reject the bible as a counterfeit, but keep the precepts on behaviour far better than any Christian.
    They reject behaving well because of their sinful nature. They reject the bible because of their skeptical nature.

    Most Christians claim to believe the bible, then spit on the homeless, demand immigrants be allowed to drown etc. They claim
    one thing and do another. They are hypocrites.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    crookedshoes says:

    I have proven repeatedly that prayer doesn’t work. If you’d like to prove it to anyone or any group, just flip a coin 1000 times and have the person (or group) pray for heads. It is a perfect demo for a party where some bore ass brings up religion or if you’ve decided to stick it up some one’s ass.

    I especially like to piggy back this demo and crap on those who have decided that “everything happens for a reason”. What a bullshit euphemism. Some things may occur for a reason, for example cause and effect things like my pupil constricting when light is shined into my eyes. However, EVERYTHING does NOT happen for a reason.

    A funny aside: I was coaching my son during a baseball game and the ump was just awful. I mean bad (not to our side but, stinking it up in general). On top of that he was nasty. During the 3rd or 4th inning, he caught a foul ball right in the clavicle and fell forward, face down. As it happened, I was standing on the field and on the other side of the fence was a Monsignor from the Catholic school. I said to him “hey father, who says prayer doesn’t work?” I thought he was going to shit in his pants. Hilarious. My wife was not very happy with me afterwards.

    In reply to #22 by Roedy:

    I don’t think proof that prayer helps healing would be evidence of a god, any more that proof that eating tetracycline heals some diseases.

    What is prayer? A group of people get together and wish that someone be healed. You don’t need a god. Whom this request is formally addressed to is probably…



    Report abuse

  • One of the things that strongly convinces people of the existence of god is hearing an internal voice and then mindlessly presuming it is God taking time out from his busy schedule for a chat. I have had this experience. The voice was not a voice, but more like a pressure that forced ideas and phrases to form in my brain, and gradually refine. They appeared first in abstract form, then refined into English words. I called this channeling. My voice badgered me to compose poetry (a small scale of what happened to Mohammed). It never occurred to me to label the source “god”. Composing poetry is not one of my skills, so I was quite impressed with the new ability, even if my works were not of divine quality. It is quite seductive. The belief the creator of the universe and you are on a first name basis is quite flattering.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    The Hobbesian says:

    If Christopher Hitchens showed up on the Daily Show this evening, announced that he was wrong and God does indeed exist but is nevertheless an asshole, then, yes, I would have to reconsider my non-belief. Of course, the latter part of that hypothetical would be crucial in authenticating the resurrected Hitchens as Hitchens.



    Report abuse

  • What evidence would it take you to believe in my invisible intangible transcendent dragon in my garage?

    Many theists accuse us atheists of strawmanning when we use the ‘magical man in the sky’ phrase, but I have heard theists say, “Well if a big hand came out of the sky, crashed through the ceiling accompanied by a booming voice would you then believe?”

    The answer would then be no, as you have only proven a ‘magic man in the sky’, which god (according to theists) most certainly is not.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #6 by Michael Austin:

    I think if aliens followed a similar religion it would at least present a good challenge to my atheism.

    Or that aliens are subject to delusion just as much as we humans are. It could be that the aliens have been listening in to humans for the past 2,000 years to all the religious bollocks that has been going on, and been deluded like humans have. Who says that intelligent aliens (also an evolved species) have to be infallible? Maybe Pascal’s wager did it for them?



    Report abuse

  • 32
    mmurray says:

    Maybe a better question than proof is “what sort of things would shake your atheism” ? That gets around the objection that anything that looks like a proof of god could just be a proof of an extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our understanding. Then I agree with Michael Austin at #6. Something like finding alien life that had a similar religion to one on earth would raise questions for me. Although the answer could be a simple as all sentient life forms worry about death and invent similar stories to explain it. Or it could be more like the Ray Bradbury story.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 33
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #33 by mmurray:

    Maybe a better question than proof is “what sort of things would shake your atheism” ? That gets around the objection that anything that looks like a proof of god could just be a proof of an extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our understanding.

    It is a good question, which avoids the assumption that an exhibition of some feature of an Abrahamic god is what is being sought.
    It does not address the question of what manifestations of the thousands of other gods might be. – with their claimed different properties.
    Theists generally are usually quite happy just to ASSUME that all these other gods, apart from their own, are false.
    A good counter question to a theist would be – “Which manifestation of another god from mythology, would convince you, you have chosen the wrong one?” ( Giant Turtles all the way down? )

    “Turtles all the way down” is a jocular expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the “unmoved mover” paradox. The phrase was popularized by Stephen Hawking in 1988. The “turtle” metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of a “primitive cosmological myth”, namely the flat earth supported on the back of a World Turtle.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #21 by SoundGuyLuke:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.
    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature.

    Sorry, what’s wrong with my heart?

    (Romans 3:23) “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.
    I am no more righteous than you, and vice versa



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #18 by Pabmusic:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word. The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature. Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory…

    I can make a start! But don’t treat me as someone with a PHD or something, I’m still in my teens…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #19 by aldous:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    The miracles Jesus did …

    They are very trivial by modern standards. Raising the dead? It’s routine medical and para-medical procedure.

    Ok, miracles… how did every thing you see, touch, feel, hear, all the trees, the flowers, intricately amazing human biology and physiology, starts, unfailing day night day night day night, brain controlling your hands to make your dinner, human brain power to create and design amazing technology (inside these brackets emphasises the words create and design), rainbows, reproduction, waterfalls, lightning, heart beats, newly born people every day, and on and on and on for a very long time… OUT OF NOTHING… BANG!… HERE WE ARE!



    Report abuse

  • 37
    Pabmusic says:

    In reply to #36 by jbjb:

    I can make a start! But don’t treat me as someone with a PHD or something, I’m still in my teens…

    Well said!

    You may be in your teens, but you are articulate and apparently a thinker. That inevitably leaves you open to people like me treating you as if you’re more mature.

    I just wanted to point out that repeating what you believe (or think you believe) is not very helpful. Why do you believe what you do? Have you considered any other views? If not, why not? Why do you think that others might not share your beliefs or expect you to provide evidence of what you assert? The questions all come back to you in the end.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #20 by Alan4discussion:

    The Bible has survived more scrutiny than any other books and is historically sound. Human error does not disprove God. Human translations do have errors in them, but the actual word of God is perfect, as God cannot make mistakes. Prov. 30:5a “Every word of God is pure”. Humans can purposely make wrong translations, burn bibles etc, and have done so. But “the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” Isaiah 40:8. God, in the bible is different to any other ‘god'(s) in other religions. “I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” Isaiah 45:5a.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #25 by Roedy:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    Lots of people reject the bible as a counterfeit, but keep the precepts on behaviour far better than any Christian.
    They reject behaving well because of their sinful nature. They reject the bible because of their skeptical nature.
    Most Christians claim to believe the bible, then spit on the homeless, demand immigrants be allowed to drown etc. They claim one thing and do another. They are hypocrites.

    What does the bible say? “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22). And “ If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:15-17).
    You can biblically challenge people whether they are true Christians or not if this spells their life. Non-Christians can do good things. But all our good is counted as filthy rags (Isaiah 56:6) before God’s eyes. That’s me, that’s everyone else as well. Anything good I do is as filthy rags, at best, before a holy God. Any good that I do does not cover up all the sins I have done.
    There are many who say they Christians but will find God tells them “I never knew you”.
    Even true Christians do things they shouldn’t, and don’t what they should’ve, and bring down a bad name for themselves. Like king David who committed adultery and murdered. No one is perfect in this life, but Christians will have repentance and remorse over sin, and a turning from sin.



    Report abuse

  • 40
    Pabmusic says:

    In reply to #37 by jbjb:

    …how did every thing you see, touch, feel, hear, all the trees, the flowers, intricately amazing human biology and physiology, starts, unfailing day night day night day night, brain controlling your hands to make your dinner, human brain power to create and design amazing technology (inside these brackets emphasises the words create and design), rainbows, reproduction, waterfalls, lightning, heart beats, newly born people every day, and on and on and on for a very long time… OUT OF NOTHING… BANG!… HERE WE ARE!

    This is a good example of your need to think more carefully about what you assert. You are in effect saying that “I just can’t imagine how these things could happen without a god directing them – therefore they can’t have happened like naturally”. But that leaves so much unanswered.

    Firstly, the truth does not depend on your understanding the process (in fact, it’s very arrogant to suggest it does). Secondly, even if a god (or other supernatural being) is involved, your lack of understanding does not tell you that the author is your god and not someone else’s.

    Of course the truth is well known. The fact that the varied and wonderful things that you mention come about by natural processes is well understood, and we understand those processes. Much modern medicine is based on our understanding of these natural processes. You ought to research evolution by natural selection for a start (which we have known about for more than 150 years and understand very well indeed, in very great detail). Things like rainbows have been understood for 300 years or so – straightforward physics will give you the answer to that. I won’t go through them all, but nothing you mention should be outside the scope of a standard high school text book (physics and biology mainly).



    Report abuse

  • 41
    Moderator says:

    Moderators’ message

    We know there can be a fine line between making a case for a religious belief (which is fine) and preaching (which is against our Terms of Use and will be removed), especially for new members of the site who are not yet used to how things work here, so we hope the following informal guidelines will help:

    Keep your posts on the topic of the discussion thread. In a thread entitled “Proof of god’s existence” it is perfectly acceptable to argue why you think a god exists. But it is not ok to simply repeat the claims your religion makes about a god, as this is not debating or arguing or discussing, but simply preaching.

    Basing your argument on bible quotes is also likely to be viewed by us as preaching, for the simple reason that the very assumption that an argument is strengthened because it comes from the bible rests on the further assumption that the bible is the word of the Christian god, which in turn takes the existence of that god as read, which is not appropriate in a discussion questioning that very idea. Basing your argument on the bible merely repeats religious claims without contributing in any way to a reasoned discussion about whether or not they are actually true.

    Our Terms and Conditions, which can be found at the bottom of every page, set out the rules and ethos of this site more fully.

    We hope that helps.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • 42
    Zeuglodon says:

    In reply to #39 by jbjb:

    The Bible has survived more scrutiny than any other books and is historically sound.

    No, the Bible has avoided serious sceptical scrutiny for centuries because most believers merely adopted it wholesale from their peers and families without questioning its veracity, and it contains as much “sound” history as the Harry Potter books do. Moreover, it’s full of thousands of absurdities, hundreds of scientific and historical inaccuracies, and hundreds more internal contradictions. The first two chapters of Genesis, the very first book in the anthology, can’t even get their two fictional creation stories to match, and merely state these supernatural claims without so much as a shred of scientific evidence. Here’s a starting point for the details of those stories alone.

    And that’s just the factual problems. The ethical problems with what it says are just as prevalent.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #42 by Moderator:

    Moderators’ message

    We know there can be a fine line between making a case for a religious belief (which is fine) and preaching (which is against our Terms of Use and will be removed), especially for new members of the site who are not yet used to how things work here, so we hope the following info…

    ok let me know if I go off topic again



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #41 by Pabmusic:

    I’m not to sure what you mean “the truth does not depend on your understanding the process”. Could you expand on this a bit?

    what would you, or what do you base truth on, then?



    Report abuse

  • 45
    godzillatemple says:

    what would you, or what do you base truth on, then?

    I think the point is that truth is not “based” on anything (including our understanding or lack thereof). Truth is what exists and is real and/or is logically necessary. Science is the process of attempting to discover and understand the truth about the universe around us, but it doesn’t “create” what is true.

    Quick example… The truth is that the Earth rotates, causing the appearance that the sun revolves around the Earth once a day. Somebody in a primitive culture may not be able to understand this concept since it goes against his perceptions, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

    Similarly, the theory evolution (i.e., that all life on Earth is the product of natural selection working with random mutations over hundreds of millions of years) may or may not be true (although the best evidence we have so far indicates that it is). The fact that somebody cannot comprehend how evolution is possible, however, has no bearing on whether or not it is true or not. The same way that reading a book and learning to comprehend the theory doesn’t suddenly make it “true.” It’s either true or not, regardless of whether you, me or anybody understands it fully.

    Keep in mind that the whole notion of God arose due to a lack of understanding in the first place. “I don’t understand how the sun moves across the sky — it must be a sun god pulled by his flaming chariot.” “I don’t understand what causes thunder and lightning — it must be Thor, the god of thunder.” “I don’t understand how all those lights in the sky got there — they must have been put there by God.” We laugh at ancient cultures who invented gods to explain natural phenomena that we fully understand today. And yet, some still cling to the “god” explanation for the few things that we still don’t have good explanations for (or things which they personally don’t understand).

    Right now, we have come up with pretty good explanations as to how everything in the known universe evolved over time due to natural processes, including stars, planets, life, intelligence, etc. We’re still a bit fuzzy on how it all got started in the first place (although I don’t think modern scientists actually think it all suddenly appeared “OUT OF NOTHING”). At most, that leaves open the possibility that some sort of “god” started the whole process going and then left it to run unassisted. Since there’s no actual evidence of such a god apart from our lack of understanding, however, there’s really no good reason to assume that such a god actually exists. Any more than there was a good reason to assume the existence of Thor simply because we didn’t understand how thunder and lightning happened.



    Report abuse

  • 46
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #37 by jbjb:

    Ok, miracles… how did every thing you see, touch, feel, hear, all the trees, the flowers, intricately amazing human biology and physiology, starts,

    These things are indeed awesome, and might appear to be miracles to people who have not had time to study the details, or are not aware of the sheer scale of space-time, but there is a whole load of detailed science which explains them. Evolutionary biology covers billions of years and millions of life forms. There are libraries full of information on this.

    unfailing day night day night day night,

    That would be the physics and astronomy of the Solar System.

    brain controlling your hands to make your dinner, human brain power to create and design amazing technology (inside these brackets emphasises the words create and design),

    That is neuroscience. Neuroscience For Kids – http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/synapse.html

    rainbows, reproduction, waterfalls, lightning, heart beats, newly born people every day, and on and on and on for a very long time…

    These are all well understood and documented in physics and biology.

    OUT OF NOTHING… BANG!… HERE WE ARE!

    That is actually a theological claim: – Magic – “God-did-it”! Science explains how it happened:-

    On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear.

    If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

    Science explains the physics of the Big-Bang, the physical evolution of the universe, and the biological evolution of life.

    Interestingly, major Christian religions also claim to accept the science of the Big-Bang with only the less educated fundamentalists disputing this science.

    @45 – I’m not to sure what you mean “the truth does not depend on your understanding the process”. Could you expand on this a bit?

    It means that the underlying reality such as the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion. A lack of understanding does not affect that reality. The Earth remains a globe regardless of how many Flat-Earthists think otherwise.

    what would you, or what do you base truth on, then?

    Scientists base their understanding on objective evidence which can be confirmed in repeat testing.. For example, we know how the scientific law gravity works on Earth. It does not matter to gravity if someone believes in it or not – they will still fall off a high building if they step over the edge.



    Report abuse

  • 47
    Steve Zara says:

    The problem is this – God is supernatural, and is defined as forever beyond nature. However, there is no way of defining what the limits of nature are, so ‘supernatural’ becomes nothing more than ‘whatever science comes up with – not that!’. It’s an eternally moving goalposts with added problem that no-one can even say where the goalpost ever was in the first place. It’s possible to have evidence for all kinds of phenomena, but it’s therefore never possible to have evidence that a thing has supernatural nature. But, if you are going to worship a being as the great creator of all things, the source of all goodness and the provider of eternal life, you had better be sure that such a being really is supernatural and not some alien having a bit of a laugh (think Q in Star Trek). So, you can never have evidence for divinity, you can never know that a being you encounter truly was the creator, truly is good, and can truly offer eternal life.



    Report abuse

  • 48
    Tyler Durden says:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.

    The Judeo-Christian bible (Old and New Testament) was authored by humans. We know this because it contains many elementary errors that an omniscient deity would not commit to text i.e. photosynthesis without the sun; the moon having its own source of light; mustard seeds being the smallest seed etc.

    By the way, what language do you read your particular version of the bible in: Ancient Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew?



    Report abuse

  • 49
    Zeuglodon says:

    In reply to #48 by Steve Zara:

    The problem is this – God is supernatural, and is defined as forever beyond nature. However, there is no way of defining what the limits of nature are, so ‘supernatural’ becomes nothing more than ‘whatever science comes up with – not that!’. It’s an eternally moving goalposts with added problem th…

    I broadly agree, except I think the distinction isn’t between naturalism and supernaturalism, per se. An old article, linked to on the WEIT.com blog, makes a point that science is about focusing on ontological realism, and that its naturalism is a consequence of its findings rather than a prior assumption. The blog entry linking to it is entitled “Must we assume naturalism to do science?”

    Here’s an extract to whet your appetite:

    Now some of you will argue, perhaps, that once a phenomenon is studied and confirmed by the methods of science, it must be natural rather than supernatural. But, as I noted, that’s tautological, and untrue if one defines the “supernatural” as do F&B. Their definition of course includes religious assertions, so that stuff can indeed be studied by science. And it’s undeniably the case that science can and has studied things like PSI phenomena and intercessory prayer. Science could study other supernatural phenomena, like miracles, rain dances, witchcraft, and so on, so that religious claims are not off limits. According F&B, science studies not what is natural, but what is real, and they prefer the term “ontological realism” to “ontological naturalism”. I agree:

    However, we maintain that ontological realism, while it may partly explain the success of science, is a defeasible conclusion of science—one that is arrived at by consideration of the evidence. What makes something ‘real’, and not just a figment of our imagination or a social construction, is that it exhibits a consistent pattern irrespective of (or indeed in spite of) our subjective beliefs, thoughts, biases, or desires. Whether or not there are phenomena that fulfill this criterion is empirically discoverable through science. Ontological realism about the entities described by science is the conclusion of an inference to the best explanation on the basis of the available evidence, not a presupposition of science.

    The original paper is here. I found it via Jerry Coyne’s blog entry here.



    Report abuse

  • 50
    Steve Zara says:

    In reply to #50 by Zeuglodon:

    In reply to #48 by Steve Zara:

    The problem is this – God is supernatural, and is defined as forever beyond nature. However, there is no way of defining what the limits of nature are, so ‘supernatural’ becomes nothing more than ‘whatever science comes up with – not that!’. It’s an eternally moving…

    I don’t really go with the concept of ‘naturalism’ myself. I prefer the terms ‘physicalism’ or ‘materialism’, which mean that things don’t happen for arbitrary reasons, or because of ineffable magical processes, but because of simple causal interactions of physical entities. For this reason I have no problem with the concept of ‘ontological realism’.

    The problem is that theists aren’t using these rules. It’s their insistence that God is somehow ‘above nature’, and it’s that ‘aboveness’ that is simply untestable. I don’t think this is a problem for science at all, as ‘above nature’ isn’t just untestable but ontological nonsense. That there can be no evidence for God (I say) isn’t in any way supportive of there being a God beyond science, it’s because the God concept is incoherent – theism simply doesn’t fit into any sensible model of reality that I know of.

    I know that Jerry (and others) disagree with my position, and thinks there can be evidence for God, but I just don’t see it.



    Report abuse

  • 51
    Zeuglodon says:

    In reply to #51 by Steve Zara:

    I know that Jerry (and others) disagree with my position, and thinks there can be evidence for God, but I just don’t see it.

    Well, I was persuaded by Ignorant Amos and others a while back that the best one could hope for is some kind of empirically-friendly external superbeing (not a voice in someone’s head) that is smarter or more powerful than we humans (for instance, can rearrange constellations into perfect English on request). If evidence came in that such a thing existed, I wouldn’t call it a god because the concept is incoherent, not leastways the omni-whatever, outside-the-universe, anti-logic kinds. So I don’t necessarily agree with Coyne here on this provisional acceptance, either. I think this view is called partial ignosticism or igtheism, though I’m not entirely sure.

    The problem is that theists aren’t using these rules. It’s their insistence that God is somehow ‘above nature’, and it’s that ‘aboveness’ that is simply untestable. I don’t think this is a problem for science at all, as ‘above nature’ isn’t just untestable but ontological nonsense. That there can be no evidence for God (I say) isn’t in any way supportive of there being a God beyond science, it’s because the God concept is incoherent – theism simply doesn’t fit into any sensible model of reality that I know of.

    I don’t think calling that naturalism is the right way to go about it, though, because it leads to a muddying of the distinction between stuff like psychic powers and ghosts, which at least can be subject to empirical skepticism in theory, and non-interventionist or superfluously interventionist gods that don’t submit to empirical testing. It’s straightforward gapology, and it’s worth emphasizing not the fact that we generally don’t know, but that the wooists are making it up and are using unsound thinking, thereby being precisely wrong. I’d just call it a refusal to be realistic.



    Report abuse

  • 52
    Steve Zara says:

    In reply to #52 by Zeuglodon:

    If evidence came in that such a thing existed, I wouldn’t call it a god because the concept is incoherent, not leastways the omni-whatever, outside-the-universe, anti-logic kinds

    Yes, I completely agree. I’m trying to encourage generally a separation between the principle of testing for a super-being and that of testing for a god. The two are quite different, and yet so often are considered to be pretty much the same thing.

    As for your other points – I’m not too fussed about terminology. I think there are ways to indirectly test for non-interventionist gods, because we can definitely example what people say are the justifications for belief in such things. It’s sort of like if someone says there are little blue men on Alpha Centauri – we can’t (yet) go and look for such little blue men, but we can investigate why the claim of their existence is made, and if it’s justified. So, I think science can have something to say about such beliefs.



    Report abuse

  • 53
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #53 by Steve Zara:

    It’s sort of like if someone says there are little blue men on Alpha Centauri – we can’t (yet) go and look for such little blue men, but we can investigate why the claim of their existence is made, and if it’s justified. So, I think science can have something to say about such beliefs.

    Well, if that’s the case, then I would say that science has conclusively shown that no beliefs in a non-interventionist god (or anything “supernatural”, for that matter) are remotely justified. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. If there is no rational justification to claim belief in God, then why are we even talking about it in the first place?



    Report abuse

  • 54
    Steve Zara says:

    In reply to #54 by godzillatemple:

    If there is no rational justification to claim belief in God, then why are we even talking about it in the first place?

    Because so many others use their belief in God to tell women that they can’t have abortions, couples that they can’t use bits of plastic to stop contraception, children they have to believe that millions of species fit in a wooden boat, and gay couples that they can’t have fun together.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #37 by jbjb:

    In reply to #19 by aldous:

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    The miracles Jesus did …

    They are very trivial by modern standards. Raising the dead? It’s routine medical and para-medical procedure.

    Ok, miracles… how did every thing you see, touch, feel, hear, all the trees, the flowers, intricately a…

    As compelling as you think your arguments are, you’re really just repeating the things others have told you. There are two books I think you should read to help you develop your own thoughts.The first is the bible ( that’s right, not a typo) , but start from the beginning and read through steadily without any input re interpretation. ( you speak English therefore your interpretation will be good enough). The second book to be read in conjunction, is “The Magic of Reality” by Richard Dawkins. ( much shorter and more fun, I assure you).

    This is a pretty big task, but I recommend that you take it slowly. Set aside time to read a couple of chapters per night. Don’t skip anything or rush over the parts that seem really awful. In no time at all you should be able to construct your own arguments.

    PS resist the temptation to jump straight to the “good” biblical quotes with which you’re already familiar. There is the odd gem to be found, but in order to know why we have so little respect for the book, you need to read it in its entirety.



    Report abuse

  • 56
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #55 by Steve Zara:

    Because so many others use their belief in God to tell women that they can’t have abortions, couples that they can’t use bits of plastic to stop contraception, children they have to believe that millions of species fit in a wooden boat, and gay couples that they can’t have fun together.

    Sorry, I meant “we” as in “we as a species” and not “we who are having this discussion.”

    My point being that if a believer has no justification for his beliefs, that should be the end of the discussion right there. Not “well, you can’t prove my beliefs are false.”



    Report abuse

  • 57
    crookedshoes says:

    No one who has ever been dead has risen. No one. ever. If you wake up, that means you were NOT dead yet.

    “I’m not dead yet”…..

    Anyway, they call these things “near death” experiences because they are not DEATH experiences. Any definition of “dead” has to include the idea of “and NOT coming back”. If you come back, you weren’t dead in the first place.

    Every state gets to define death by it’s own criteria. If you live in Philly and are “dead” you can be driven across the bridge to New Jersey where you are not dead. The point is, dead is dead. It is NOT routine for medical people to bring a dead person back to life. They can get a heart restarted. They can save your life, but when you die, you are dead.



    Report abuse

  • 58
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #58 by crookedshoes:

    No one who has ever been dead has risen. No one. ever. If you wake up, that means you were NOT dead yet.

    That reminds me of something one of my college philosophy professors said, to wit, no innocent man ever goes to jail since, by definition, somebody is “guilty” if they are found guilty in a court of law. It has nothing to do whether they actually committed the act they are accused of.

    Personally, I think we can say that somebody is at least “clinically” dead if their heart and brain stops functioning for any length of time and that some people have been resuscitated after that point. Assuming they ever get the bugs out of cryogenics, what would you say about somebody who is put on ice after their heart and brain stopped and then resuscitated after 50 years?

    I think “dead is dead” only applies if you believe in the existence of an immortal soul and define death as the point when the soul leaves the body. Other than that, I don’t think you can really be dogmatic about it.



    Report abuse

  • I think the thing that would convince me of the existence of a specific brand of god would be statistics. If there was a positive correlation between say, Catholics and earthquake survivors, or Buddhists miraculously beating the odds in a flood, I may be swayed in the direction that those followers could have something.

    When it comes to vague deistic claims, it’s much harder to put under the microscope.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #47 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #37 by jbjb:

    Ok, a rough summary of what has been said (at least from my comments) … I say there is a God, others say nay. Others say evolution, I say no. and etc.
    If it isn’t going off topic, we need to pin down exact points in history, science, and exact proofs and so on. Otherwise we will go in circles and not get anywhere.
    And unfortunately I might not be able to reply to everyone due to the fact that there is only one of me to a lot of other commenters.



    Report abuse

  • 61
    crookedshoes says:

    Personally, I think we can say that somebody is at least “clinically” dead if their heart and brain stops functioning for any length of time and that some people have been resuscitated after that point. Assuming they ever get the bugs out of cryogenics, what would you say about somebody who is put on ice after their heart and brain stopped and then resuscitated after 50 years?

    “Clinically dead” must not actually mean “dead”, then. If their heart and brain are stopped for 50 years and then restarted, we need to invent a new term to describe the state they are/were in. “Dead” is not correct. Oh, and your example is gonna take some waiting time, in the meantime, we can develop that other term!

    The heart stopping is NOT at all a reliable measure of “dead”. The brain flatlining is a much better example of “dead” however, if the brain “clicks” back on, then it was not dead in the first place. I’d like to see reliable documented evidence of a flatlined brain dead person being revived after a”length of time”. It suddenly gets very nebulous, huh?

    When things die, they are dead. No dogma, just statement of fact. As for existence of a soul, I do not really understand what that has to do with my point. Here it is, if you are revived after “some length of time” then you weren’t dead in the first place. Our measuring of “dead” is not perfect but the error is NOT on the side of “rising from the dead”.

    In reply to #59 by godzillatemple:

    In reply to #58 by crookedshoes:

    No one who has ever been dead has risen. No one. ever. If you wake up, that means you were NOT dead yet.

    That reminds me of something one of my college philosophy professors said, to wit, no innocent man ever goes to jail since, by definition, somebody is “guilt…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #61 by jbjb:

    And unfortunately I might not be able to reply to everyone due to the fact that there is only one of me to a lot of other commenters.

    Don’t worry about that. Others have been coming here for years telling us the same things, so we are used to hearing them. We always end up demanding that they produce evidence, and then they go away.

    Got evidence?



    Report abuse

  • 63
    Pabmusic says:

    In reply to #45 by jbjb:

    In reply to #41 by Pabmusic:

    I’m not to sure what you mean “the truth does not depend on your understanding the process”. Could you expand on this a bit?

    The truth of something does not depend on whether you personally can understand it. If you (or me or anyone else) don’t understand something, that doesn’t affect whether it is true or not. If has always been true that germs cause disease, but no-one appears to have understood that before the last 200 years or so.



    Report abuse

  • 64
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #61 by jbjb:

    In reply to #47 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #37 by jbjb:

    Ok, a rough summary of what has been said (at least from my comments) … I say there is a God, others say nay. Others say evolution, I say no. and etc.

    Welcome jbjb. Sorry if you are feeling like you are being jumped on from all directions. It can be a bit like that sometimes. So I’ll leave gods aside. On what basis do you say no to evolution ? I’m interested your understanding of how science works and on what basis you as an individual can reject the consensus of the scientific community.

    Thanks – Michael



    Report abuse

  • 65
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #61 by jbjb:

    In reply to #47 by Alan4discussion:

    Ok, a rough summary of what has been said (at least from my comments) …

    You really need to address specific points. My post @47 gives links and considerable details. If you do not understand these you need to identify what you are disputing or asking questions about. This site has many discussions on which readers can find lots of information, but some academic discussions are technically complex.

    I say there is a God, others say nay.

    Millions of other people in the world past or present, say they believe in gods, but they are talking about different gods or different versions of gods. If you wish to assert the existence of a god, you need to say which one( List of deities), what you claim it does, what religion you are following, and present some evidence of the god’s existence and its actions.

    Others say evolution, I say no. and etc.

    The fact that someone says they do not accept evolution is of no importance to scientists who have spent years studying evolutionary biology. It just means they have not studied or cannot understand the subject. Sometimes it means they have been told nonsense by ignorant people who know no science. As I pointed out about gravity and the global Earth @47, underlying facts and scientific descriptions of them, are not dependent on who chooses to believe them.

    As I also pointed out @47 educated Christians from the Church of England and Roman Catholicism say they accept the science of the Big-Bang and of Evolution. I provided you with a link quoting the Vatican on that topic. If you do not agree with the scientists or with these statements from Christian churches – WHY? What evidence do you have?

    If it isn’t going off topic, we need to pin down exact points in history, science, and exact proofs and so on.

    If you really don’t know the basics of history, cosmology, quantum physics, astronomy or biology, it is not possible to fit several years of science education on to a discussion thread.

    Otherwise we will go in circles and not get anywhere.

    I find that many Christians are of the mistaken belief that the Bible is a history book, when it is a collection of myths written down decades or centuries after supposed events. The usual cause of this is that they have not studied any history independently recorded by the Romans and others from the Biblical times. Many have not even studied the history of their own religion, or the origins of bible stories.

    Back to the topic. If you are proposing a particular god or version of god, define it and produce some evidence to show it exists as you describe it.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #65 by mmurray:

    What about the saltiness of the sea? If the earth was so old, than shouldn’t there be a lot more salt in the sea than there is currently? John Joly calculated the maximum earth’s age, from the sea saltiness, to be 80-90million years old. Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys… 62 million years. These were maximum in the millions, so how does this fit in with the billions?



    Report abuse

  • 68
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #68 by jbjb:

    In reply to #65 by mmurray:

    What about the saltiness of the sea? If the earth was so old, than shouldn’t there be a lot more salt in the sea than there is currently? John Joly calculated the maximum earth’s age, from the sea saltiness, to be 80-90million years old. Steve Austin and Russell Humphrey…

    Seriously? Why do I get the feeling you are just reading from a Creationist website somewhere instead of forming your own opinions? If you are serious about learning, there are some very good websites out there that go through all the standard Creationist arguments against science and demolish them one by one. For example:

    http://www.talkorigins.org

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org

    To answer your specific question about salt, actual scientists have shown that Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimated the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omitted sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omitted numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.

    A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

    For more information, see http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html.

    Again, though, you need to be sincere in your desire to actually know the truth and not just coming here parotting what you have read somewhere in an effort to convince us poor deluded atheists of the errors of our ways.



    Report abuse

  • 71
    Ryan1306 says:

    Hi jbjb. Have you actually tried looking for any of these answers your self? Why don’t you just type in transitional fossils on google? I see all kinds of websites on the subject.

    I’d also like to point out that you don’t have to be a head in the sand fundamentalist to believe in god, or even the Christian religion. You might be interested to read what Pope John Paul the second wrote on the validity of evolution.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

    In reply to #70 by jbjb:

    In reply to #69 by godzillatemple:
    Where are evolution ‘missing links’? In the fossils?



    Report abuse

  • 74
    crookedshoes says:

    Look at Tiktaalik, found by Neil Shubin, and how did he know where to look? Because evolutionary theory predicted how long ago the fish/amphibian transition occurred and Neil looked at a map of the earth and picked sites where rock was exposed of exactly the right age, went there and after a short THREE YEARS of looking, found Tiktaalik.

    So, to summarize: you asked for a specimen. Not only do I provide it, but, I can show you how and why the theory of evolution was crucial to PREDICTING the find. See, that’s what scientific theories do, they predict things that can be verified and when they do, confidence in their veracity increases. By now, the veracity of Evolution is pretty significant.

    BTW, got that evidence of that god thing? I am just wondering how many times the good folks here will patiently answer your questions with verifiable facts and you will continue skooming shitty websites for any talking point you can find, throw it out there and continue to evade answering the ONE question that has been put at your feet.

    Don’t worry, we all (including you) know the answer. We all (including you) know what you want and need the answer to be, but unless and until you actually provide something that matters in the real, tangible world, well, your opinion remains quite dubious.

    In reply to #70 by jbjb:

    In reply to #69 by godzillatemple:
    Where are evolution ‘missing links’? In the fossils?



    Report abuse

  • 75
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #70 by jbjb:

    Where are evolution ‘missing links’? In the fossils?

    You really are going through a checklist, aren’t you? The problem is that, aside from the fact that every single argument you are making has already been refuted time and time again (please look at those links I included in my last post, I beg you), none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the proof of God’s existence.

    Even if we didn’t have a good explanation as to why the sea is salty (which we do), and even if we didn’t have a whole bunch of transitional “missing links” in the fossil record (which we have in abundance), and even if we didn’t have a solid explanation as to how complex structures such as the eye can evolve over time (which we do), and even if “macroevolution” had never been observed (which it has), etc., etc., etc., all it would mean is that we don’t currently have a good explanation. Under no circumstances would it somehow prove that “God did it.” It’s not enough to say that science can’t explain something — you have to show evidence that God explains it.

    I have to laugh, btw, at the utter inconsistency of the various Creationist counter-arguments. They start from the premise that God created the entire universe out of nothing 6000-10000 years ago. When science offers proof that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, they come up with arguments that supposedly show that the Earth can’t be any older than 80 million years old (as with your salt example). But they never offer any evidence that the Earth is actually only 10 thousand years old.

    Again, it’s not enough to try and show that established (very well established, I might add) science is wrong or incomplete. You need to actually show evidence that God did it. All of science could be completely and utterly wrong about everything, and it still wouldn’t prove anything whatsoever about the existence of God. The ball is in your court — what is the testable and verifiable evidence for the existence of the Christian god of the Bible (or any other God, for that matter)?



    Report abuse

  • 76
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #68 by jbjb:

    What about the saltiness of the sea? If the earth was so old, than shouldn’t there be a lot more salt in the sea than there is currently?

    You seem to be looking for new sources of old ignorance from scientific illiterates!

    John Joly calculated the maximum earth’s age, from the sea saltiness, to be 80-90million years old.

    John Joly, (1857–1933) estimated that the … Yes there were some people – some scientists – specialists in the wrong subjects who were ignorant of modern science a hundred years ago!

    However in 2013 rivers carrying salt to the sea is part of the water cycle which is taught in school geography.http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle-kids-adv.html

    The recycling of the Earth’s limited supply of salt from rocks is also schoolboy geography and geology.

    It is however too advanced for these pseudoscience ignoramuses from that well known source of disinformation – the CREATION SCIENCE FELLOWSHIP.

    The fancy sounding title of “Professor of International Creation Research” at the CREATION SCIENCE FELLOWSHIP** is not a science post, at a reputable university**, but is a tarted-up pseudo-science job producing fake science reports to con people like you.

    Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys… 62 million years

    Dr. Humphreys is Adjunct Professor at ICR and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Box 5800, Div. 1261, Albuquerque, NM 87185. The Laboratories have not supported this work.

    Explained simply – His employers at the real science laboratory where he does some real science, disown him and recognise this claim as incompetent nonsense which would damage their reputation!

    If you are going to quote science you need to quote from real scientists not these incompetent people who produce fake science reports, for nutter organisations which no honest scientific bodies will have anything to do with!

    The age of the Earth is calculated using radioactive isotopes. Only an geology illiterate would not know that the same salt is recycled over and over again in rocks and water.

    This has nothing to do with evidence for god claims. You need to put a coherent case together if anyone is to take you seriously!



    Report abuse

  • 77
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #62 by crookedshoes:

    Here it is, if you are revived after “some length of time” then you weren’t dead in the first place.

    Ah. No true Scotsman and all that, gotcha.

    I brought in the concept of a soul because that seems to be the only way one could ever make a clear demarcation between life and death. I reject the notion of a soul, but I also reject the clear demarcation between life and death. You’ve said that “dead is dead” but haven’t really defined what “dead” actually means other than to say a condition where somebody cannot ever be brought back to life. That’s not really a definition, however, and it’s quite possible that scientific advances will continue to push the boundaries.

    To take your “definition” to an extreme, let’s say science discovers away to store consciousness outside the body (or, perhaps, to record the pattern and make a copy of our consciousness). You die and are buried and your body rots in the ground. A thousand years later, somebody grows a clone of your original body based on some skin samples what were carefully stored and then your consciousness (or the copy) is downloaded into the clone’s brain. You have now been brought back to life in both body and mind. According to your definition, you never really “died” in the first place.

    You can’t just define something by saying that it requires that something else never happens in the future, since the future is unknowable (and infinitely long). At some point, you need to be able to define when the event occurs without making it contingent on the non-occurrence of some other future event. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of “mostly dead” people a la “The Princess Bride.”



    Report abuse

  • 78
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #70 by jbjb:

    Where are evolution ‘missing links’? In the fossils?

    You have not produced a single answer which shows you have read links provided or tried to understand information given to you.

    You are just reading a list from ignoramuses which we have seen before!

    We know the ignoramuses at the little office which calls itself “Creation International”, has long lists of questions which THEY ARE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND, but that does not mean that real scientists (or educated school children), do not know these answers.

    Any EVIDENCE for that god-claim???



    Report abuse

  • 79
    crookedshoes says:

    Hey Godzilla,
    In all your answers (which I am enjoying very much), you are constantly looking to the future and lots of “what if’s” and “could be’s”.
    That is cool. But, here is the deal, the definition of something doesn’t change UNTIL a “what if” or “could be” becomes a reality.

    Leaving the door open to future advancements is, overall, good policy. But bending and changing because of what you sense might occur sometime in the future is, on all accounts, bad policy.

    You’ve said that “dead is dead” but haven’t really defined what “dead” actually means other than to say a condition where somebody cannot ever be brought back to life

    That IS what dead is. I am of the opinion that it is YOU who haven’t adequately defined “dead”. I have. At least as of right this moment in 2013. I hope I am alive 50 years from now to see your cryogenic hypothesis come to fruition (I do not think that it will — freezing humans kills them)

    BTW, one of the prof’s where I studied in Grad school worked on frogs that can freeze solid and be thawed. It was awesome stuff. For this reason the door is open. BUT, just a crack!

    In reply to #78 by godzillatemple:

    In reply to #62 by crookedshoes:

    Here it is, if you are revived after “some length of time” then you weren’t dead in the first place.

    Ah. No true Scotsman and all that, gotcha.

    I brought in the concept of a soul because that seems to be the only way one could ever make a clear demarcation betwee…



    Report abuse

  • 80
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #80 by crookedshoes:

    That IS what dead is. I am of the opinion that it is YOU who haven’t adequately defined “dead”.

    There are plenty of definitions of “dead”. Stoppage of the heart. Cessation of brain activity. Onset of cellular decay. But each of those include the possibility that something, somehow, could reverse the condition. Which means that, according to you, there is no way to tell if any of these things are “really” death unless and until we wait an infinite time to see what happens. Medical science has made wonderful advancements, and many people who would have been “dead” 100 years ago with no possibility of being revived can easily be revived today due to CPR. Does that mean that a person whose heart stopped 100 years ago was instantly dead, but somebody whose heart stops today may not be dead?

    It seems to me as though your argument is wholly circular. “Death” (according to you) is the state from which one can never be revived. But how do you actually know whether or not somebody could be possibly revived? By the fact that they are never revived, apparently. Or, in other words, “dead is dead”. A tautology, to be sure, but not a particularly useful definition.

    To be honest, I’m not even sure why we are even debating this in the first place. The fact that somebody could, by my definition, be brought back to life after being dead doesn’t in any way suggest that there is some sort of afterlife, soul or god. It’s really just a matter of semantics, isn’t it?



    Report abuse

  • 81
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #68 by jbjb:

    In reply to #65 by mmurray:

    What about the saltiness of the sea? If the earth was so old, than shouldn’t there be a lot more salt in the sea than there is currently? John Joly calculated the maximum earth’s age, from the sea saltiness, to be 80-90million years old. Steve Austin and Russell Humphrey…

    That was exactly the answer I was trying to avoid jbjb. For reasons I’ll make clear I hope I’m not asking if you or I think evolution makes sense.

    Let me try again. Science is a method for making reliable predictions about reality. We know it works because of the technology that surrounds us. But science is hard. Most things at the cutting edge, where progress is made, depend on having a bachelors degree plus a phd plus ten to twenty years research experience and a record of publication in refereed journals. It’s not possible for you and me to decide if evolution is right or wrong. All we can ask is “what is the scientific consensus” and an auxiliary question “how strong is that consensus”. In the case of evolution by natural selection the scientific consensus is that it is correct and that consensus is overwhelmingly strong.

    So why do you reject this ?

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 82
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #68 by jbjb:

    In reply to #65 by mmurray:

    What about the saltiness of the sea? If the earth was so old, than shouldn’t there be a lot more salt in the sea than there is currently? John Joly calculated the maximum earth’s age, from the sea saltiness, to be 80-90million years old. Steve Austin and Russell Humphrey…

    John Joly did that work over 100 years ago. Science has moved on from them. Have a look here or here. It’s not hard to find the answers to these questions. It took me 5 minutes on google. Why didn’t you check it before you posted it ?

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • Apologies, perhaps I was wrong on the salt in sea, and I should have looked it up more. In the future I shall study what I am about to say. It appears I cannot prove to you scienctifically- especially since I don’t know much more than high-school level. In fact, how can I possibly prove to you anything scientifically, if I don’t know much science?



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #84 by jbjb:

    … especially since I don’t know much more than high-school level.

    That’s okay, you can learn new things. How do you, personally, decide which things that are told to you are reliable and which things may be believed by the person telling, but are not necessarily true?



    Report abuse

  • 85
    Tyler Durden says:

    In reply to #84 by jbjb:

    In the future I shall study what I am about to say.

    That would be much appreciated, and wise, especially as you as posting on the site of an esteemed scientist, author, and professor.

    It would also help if you came up with your own queries; copy and pasting from creationist sites is just lazy, and we’ve seen it all before.



    Report abuse

  • 86
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #84 by jbjb:

    Apologies, perhaps I was wrong on the salt in sea, and I should have looked it up more. In the future I shall study what I am about to say. It appears I cannot prove to you scienctifically- especially since I don’t know much more than high-school level. In fact, how can I possibly prove to you anything scientifically, if I don’t know much science?

    No problem.

    But it’s not a question of just being wrong it’s more a case of what were you thinking ? Why did you imagine that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who devote their lives to studying these things had missed the salt problem ? You need to learn about how scientists do science.
    This is a good article. Remember that overturning a famous theory is how scientists attract fame and fortune. If they could overturn Darwin they would. But they haven’t which means they can’t. If they can’t do it then certainly some dodgy internet site is not going to be able to.

    In fact, how can I possibly prove to you anything scientifically, if I don’t know much science?

    You can never prove anything with science all you can do is gather evidence and show things more or less probably true. Evolution being right is backed by an enormous amount of evidence and therefore is very, very, very, ….., very probably true.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 87
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #84 by jbjb:

    Apologies, perhaps I was wrong on the salt in sea, and I should have looked it up more. In the future I shall study what I am about to say.

    That is a good approach. It is also important to try to check where information comes from. There is a lot of useful information from articles based on and quoting (Giving citations) reputable university studies. Wikipedia can be unreliable, but tries to list its sources. Unfortunately there is also a lot of misleading junk on the internet, from various types of fundamentalists, quacks, and conspiracy theorists.

    It appears I cannot prove to you scienctifically- especially since I don’t know much more than high-school level. In fact, how can I possibly prove to you anything scientifically, if I don’t know much science?

    You need to quote from reputable scientific (or historical) articles articles and studies. The original investigations will have been carried out by university specialists and independently cross-checked by other university specialists after the reports have been published in the journals of specialist scientific bodies. Any simple articles should quote the originals where they got the information, and name them.

    (In other words, you are more likely to get honest, competent information on space from ESA or NASA than from some UFO nutter site! )

    Where are evolution ‘missing links’? In the fossils?

    The creationist organisations who pose as experts are often quoted in discussions here.

    The last time someone posted their claim that fish could not evolve legs from fins, (see – The origin of tetrapods – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms) I posted links showing photographs of these legs in fossils and in living animals,( – http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/animals/fish-animals/spiny-rayed-fish/mudskippers/) so we could all have a laugh at these Young-Earth “creationist pseudo-expert authors”! Most of their answers would fail a school biology test or geography test, but they are so stupid and ignorant that they think they are experts.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #84 by jbjb:

    Apologies, perhaps I was wrong on the salt in sea, and I should have looked it up more. In the future I shall study what I am about to say. It appears I cannot prove to you scienctifically- especially since I don’t know much more than high-school level. In fact, how can I possibly prove to you anyth…

    Just a word to the wise…Google things you’re unsure of by all means, but I think it’s important to get some grounding in the basics as well. Science can be really daunting to everyone, especially if it’s detailed knowledge in a specific field. There’s a temptation to slip back to the simple answers of creationism by default when confronted with some really complex stuff. As someone said in an earlier post, science can be really hard, but once you’ve grasped the basics you can tell the difference between good science and hokum.



    Report abuse

  • 89
    crookedshoes says:

    I agree, I AM being circular and it IS a tautology. I never knew I harbored such ideas, but you managed to bring them to my awareness.
    So, this was a cool and productive conversation, thanks. I am gonna think and get a better definition, because as much as we are “disagreeing”…. i find myself agreeing with you on lots of points and levels. I usually say “I learned today” this one is “I thought today, differently than I have thought in a long time” That, in my book is a great day!

    In reply to #81 by godzillatemple:

    In reply to #80 by crookedshoes:

    That IS what dead is. I am of the opinion that it is YOU who haven’t adequately defined “dead”.

    There are plenty of definitions of “dead”. Stoppage of the heart. Cessation of brain activity. Onset of cellular decay. But each of those include the possibility tha…



    Report abuse

  • 90
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #90 by crookedshoes:

    So, this was a cool and productive conversation, thanks. I am gonna think and get a better definition, because as much as we are “disagreeing”…. i find myself agreeing with you on lots of points and levels. I usually say “I learned today” this one is “I thought today, differently than I have thought in a long time” That, in my book is a great day!

    Glad to be of service! ^_^



    Report abuse

  • 91
    RealEyes says:

    Forgive me if I’m treading old ground here (I’ve not read the comment thread in its entirety) but for me, proof of God’s existence would be very easily attainable if God holds the awareness and power that we are led to believe he does. I do not know specifically what I would need to see/experience in order to convince me, beyond all doubt, that any particular scripture is the absolute truth of existence. But God, as he is often described, almost certainly would know. All I know is that I’ve not seen or experienced it yet. The fact that I haven’t is reason enough for me to disbelieve. That’s not to say that because I haven’t seen or experienced it, it doesn’t exist. I couldn’t possibly justify that claim. But I can, and do, take the standpoint that if we have no reason to believe something (other than wanting to believe it), then we shouldn’t believe it. We should only believe what we have reason to believe, even if that may seem uncomfortable or unappealing to our very nature. Where there are gaps, we should look to fill them through logic and reasoning. In my view, it’s a simple truth that some things are currently unknown, or not fully understood at least, and that some things may never be known. We shouldn’t be afraid of that, nor should we be afraid to question what we currently hold to be true – applying of course to science and religion equally. It seems to me, short of waking up one morning to find that all human beings share a devout and unshakable belief in the same true God (which surely he/she/it could bring about, by means of miracle) then the only convincing proof will come shortly after the physical life. It’s my personal belief (or rather opinion) that this proof will never come.

    In response to my personal opinion that God will reveal himself to me (to the extent that I could be sufficiently convinced) if he a) existed and b) so desired, the Christian response is typically ‘You have not found God because YOU are not looking for him’ (i.e. you are waiting for him to find you). That just about sums up religion for me. Look for what YOU want to find and you will generally find it. Personally, I would like to find the truth. Or as close to the truth as we can humanly get. That requires an open and inquisitive mind. As Dawkin’s rightly and frequently points out, this mentality does not detract from the wonder and magnificence of the universe (and all within it) in any way, shape or form.



    Report abuse

  • 92
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #92 by RealEyes:

    Proof of God’s existence would be very easily attainable if God holds the awareness and power that we are led to believe he does…

    Or, conversely, if you happened to be particularly gullible or ignorant. Or if your standard of proof was really, really low.

    Some people see proof of God’s existence everywhere they look. “A beautiful sunset — proof of God’s existence!” “My cancer went into remission after I prayed — proof of God’s existence!” “I don’t understand how man could have evolved from lesser forms — proof of God’s existence!”

    Which is to say that it’s not whether there is any proof of God’s existence, but whether that proof is any good…



    Report abuse

  • 93
    RealEyes says:

    In reply to #93 by godzillatemple:

    Or, conversely, if you happened to be particularly gullible or ignorant. Or if your standard of proof was really, really low.

    Some peop…

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does. As you pointed out, believers often find ‘proof’ wherever they want to see it and often in things that cannot be scientifically dis-proven. That, to me, is completely the wrong way around. You should believe in something when it can be easily proven, not in something simply because you want to and because it cannot be easily dis-proven (otherwise known as faith). I could imagine any number of things (I’ll avoid referring to the overused flying teapot analogy) that could not be dis-proven, but that doesn’t make them a reality. Unless of course you take the viewpoint that reality only exists as a concept in the human mind, in which case we all hold our own unique realities, that are all entirely true to us (even if contradictory to one another). I don’t buy that for a minute. I personally believe that there is a universal truth independent of human consciousness, and that humans can have a real bash at understanding it (even if confined to the realms of human understanding). We just need to ditch the desperate hope that the truth, or reality, simply must be biased to human preferences.



    Report abuse

  • 94
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #94 by RealEyes:

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.

    Well, given most definitions of God, I think it’s trivially easy to prove that that God couldn’t possibly exist, that he doesn’t actually exist and/or that he is completely irrelevant even if he did exist.

    As you pointed out, believers often find ‘proof’ wherever they want to see it and often in things that cannot be scientifically dis-proven.

    Well, I’m not sure about the “things that cannot be scientifically dis-proven” bit, personally. As I mentioned above, there are certainly some notions of God (the immaterial, timeless, changeless, supernatural being who exists wholly outside of the universe) that cannot be disproved, but those concepts of God, by their very definition, cannot interact with the material world. Basically, any being that can interact with the physical world can be scientifically verified. If it can’t be scientifically verified, it doesn’t interact with the physical world and is therefore irrelevant.

    You should believe in something when it can be easily proven, not in something simply because you want to and because it cannot be easily dis-proven (otherwise known as faith).

    Well, yes and know. I don’t know of anybody who believes in (or, more properly, accepts) quantum mechanics who thinks it can be easily proven. That doesn’t make it less worthy of acceptance, however, as long as the scientific evidence is there. The same might be said about evolution. There are plenty of people who refuse to accept it on the grounds that it is not easy to prove, but that shows more their lack of understanding than the lack of validity of the underlying theory.

    I could imagine any number of things (I’ll avoid referring to the overused flying teapot analogy) that could not be dis-proven, but that doesn’t make them a reality.

    True. But, as I said, anything that can’t be disproved is likely to have no more than philosophical significance. Even if that floating teapot orbiting Jupiter existed, it would have no impact on our lives unless and until we found some actual evidence of its existence.

    Unless of course you take the viewpoint that reality only exists as a concept in the human mind, in which case we all hold our own unique realities, that are all entirely true to us (even if contradictory to one another). I don’t buy that for a minute.

    I don’t buy it, either. The whole “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound” argument hinges (as far as I am concerned) on the definition of “sound.” If you define “sound” as the propagation of waves through the air, then perception is irrelevant. If, however, you define “sound” as the propagation of waves through the air as the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium, then no sound can exist absent a receiver.

    There is no definition of “reality”, however, that requires somebody to perceive it in order to be real.

    Having said that, however, it is possible that some aspects of reality are impossible to understand wholly in the abstract without being filtered through the lens of our perception. Reality may not be “biased toward human perceptions,” but it may be warped by our perceptions of it. To state that a red apple is, in fact, red is a trivial statement of truth. In fact, though, it is only “red” because we perceive it as such. If our sun produced a different spectrum of light, the apple would have a different color. Nothing about the apple would have changed, just our perception of it.

    So, yes. The ultimate reality of the universe is not affected by whether or not we wish there were a God or an afterlife. There may be aspects of reality that we are unable to understand, or that we are unable to understand without our own filters, but that doesn’t provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #89 by Nitya:

    Don’t misunderstand me here. I said I can’t prove to YOU with science, quite frankly, because I as I said before, I don’t know an awful lot about it.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #96 by jbjb:

    In reply to #89 by Nitya:

    Don’t misunderstand me here. I said I can’t prove to YOU with science, quite frankly, because I as I said before, I don’t know an awful lot about it.

    Again, how do you, personally, decide which things that are told to you are reliable and which things may be believed by the person telling, but are not necessarily true?



    Report abuse

  • 97
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #96 by jbjb:

    Don’t misunderstand me here. I said I can’t prove to YOU with science, quite frankly, because I as I said before, I don’t know an awful lot about it.

    I think the point is that NOBODY, no matter how well educated in science, has ever proved that ANY god existed.

    The only scientific evidence is from neuroscientists who have identified specific areas of the brain which can contain god-delusions.

    Science has however proved that many claimed features of gods’ material interventions cannot exist in the real world.



    Report abuse

  • 98
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #94 by RealEyes:
    >

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.

    This is just asserting that the burden of proof is reversed. That view serves no useful purpose in understanding the world as it allows almost anything to be made up and be believed.

    As you pointed out, believers often find ‘proof’ wherever they want to see it and often in things that cannot be scientifically dis-proven.

    In unknown areas, speculations of things which cannot (yet) be scientifically disproven, there is likely to be the possibility that one speculation may be right and thousands or millions of other guesses are wrong! As way of understanding reality the method of basing views on the absence of current disproof, is hopelessly flawed! The history of such past claims now refuted by science, confirms this.



    Report abuse

  • 99
    RealEyes says:

    In reply to #99 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #94 by RealEyes:

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.

    This is just asserting that the burden of proof is reversed. That view serves no useful purpose in understanding the world…

    I hope your post was an effort to further reinforce the points I made, rather than an effort to refute them having misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Because I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. I completely agree that mankind should ‘believe’ on the grounds of probability and not on the grounds of possibility. Much to the delight of organized religion, virtually anything is possible. However, not all that is possible, is probable. I like to think that Atheists refrain from making assertions that are impossible to prove, unlike religion. Instead, we try to limit our knowledge to what can be shown or demonstrated to have significant degree of probability. We are not afraid to admit that new theories or new methods of testing may arise that offer a better degree of probability, and therefore a more likely explanation of the truth. This progressive attitude, I believe, is what is most likely to get us closer to the actual truth. It is a not a criticism of science to admit that one theory trumps another, but rather an overwhelming compliment and the very essence of it. By ‘limiting’ our knowledge to what we can reasonably prove, we are actually expanding our knowledge because it encourages us to actually look and understand. I don’t believe there is a universal truth that was revealed to mankind several thousand years ago. I believe there is a universal truth that we are slowly working to discover, and that may never be discovered by mankind.



    Report abuse

  • 100
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #100 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #99 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #94 by RealEyes:

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.

    This is just asserting that the burden of proof is reversed. That view serves no useful purpose in understanding the world…

    I hope your post was an effort to further reinforce the points I made, rather than an effort to refute them having misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Because I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. I completely agree that mankind should ‘believe’ on the grounds of probability and not on the grounds of possibility.

    I did read your posts carefully and understood them, – later ones in the context of earlier ones, – but there were some parts which appeared unclear and could be read as contradictory. I therefore put in the clarification about the actual onus of proof, where it was not clear if you were presenting a misguided theist’s viewpoint, or stating an assertion about the fallacy of proving a negative.

    A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

    X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

    If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God’s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.



    Report abuse

  • 101
    RealEyes says:

    In reply to #101 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #100 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #99 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #94 by RealEyes:

    Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.

    This is just asserting that the burden of proof is re…

    Ah, I see what you mean. I opened my response with ‘Absolutely, and the burden remains on the challenger to prove that God doesn’t or cannot exist, rather than the challenged to prove that he does.’, however I wasn’t explicit in pointing out where that burden comes from. I do not believe for one minute that this is a fair or legitimate burden, but it’s certainly a real burden often placed on the Atheist who challenges the existence of God. In my view, there is no cause for a reasoned counter-argument in the absence of a reasoned argument (beyond providing an opportunity for the challenger to point out the credulity of such claims., which is of course very important). So the latter of your statements is true, in that I was simply stating (or ineffectively inferring, as it happens!) an assertion about the fallacy of proving a negative. There’s not enough time in the world to debate all conceivable negative proofs, even if it were possible.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #96 by jbjb:

    In reply to #89 by Nitya:

    Don’t misunderstand me here. I said I can’t prove to YOU with science, quite frankly, because I as I said before, I don’t know an awful lot about it.

    How do you prove these things to yourself? Be honest….is it a gut feeling? Has someone in authority told you what to believe? As you accept some things to be true and not others, you must have a method of selecting? I want you to do a bit of introspection and think about the method you use to determine the truth.

    Almost everyone who comments on this site bases their judgements on the results of the scientific method. This method gives us an extremely good indication whether statements are valid or not. If you want to be taken seriously, it would be wise to know a little about where we’re coming from. Thus…my advice to learn a few of the basics.

    You mentioned that you are still in your teens. Does this put you close to twenty or closer to thirteen? This makes a big difference regarding the level of understanding you should be aiming for.



    Report abuse

  • 104
    RealEyes says:

    In reply to #104 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #102 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #101 by Alan4discussion:

    There’s not enough time in the world to debate all conceivable negative proofs, even if it were possible.

    I think you are fairly new to this site, so you may not have seen this link which I have posted before!

    Absence of Evidenc…

    Thanks for the link, I’d say the piece pretty much sums up how I feel on the matter. In my ideal world, it wouldn’t be necessary to have to justify such a position as it just seems so obvious to me that faith alone is not sufficient to translate opinion into truth (or fact, if you prefer) – which is effectively what you’re doing when you say, ‘there is no evidence to the contrary therefore my unsubstantiated opinion is true’. Whilst I’m aware that we may not be able to establish an irrefutable universal truth, we should be on a constant path to ensure that our current account of the truth is the most plausible and demonstrable one.

    Oh, and you’re right in thinking that I’m new to the site. Swung by today, in fact!



    Report abuse

  • One thing I do know is that you don’t have to be an athiest to be a good scientist or engineer… so many of our excellent scientists in history believed in intelligent design, and believing in that didn’t hinder them.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #66 by Alan4discussion:

    “you need to say which one”

    Compared to other religions, how is Christianity different? How is the Bible different to other books? Every other religion is salvation not by God alone, but through man’s works. repeat man’s works. Salvation described in the bible, however, is not reliant on man and his works, but by God alone. All other religions attribute salvation fully to man, or add on to God for salvation. The bible describes man as he really is along with how man can be saved.



    Report abuse

  • Touching on transitional fossil links, take Archaeopteryx for example. Not even all evolutionists agree that this can be a missing link, never mind the multitude of creationists. Why should I believe this? It depends on how you look at it. Many attempts to find the transitional fossil links have been proven to be false, such as a tiny little tooth or something used as human evolution evidence, but proclaimed as true to suit their theory.



    Report abuse

  • This is a website called foundation for science and reasoning. Below is my reasoning.

    Tell me. If there is no God than where did the idea of morals come from? Where did right and wrong come from? Is raping and murder wrong? If there is no ultimate right and wrong, it doesn’t matter what people do. You may say it’s for the good of the community. But if we’re no different to animals, why should we have to act differently? ‘good of the community’. And where does the community and government get it’s moral ideas from, like don’t murder and rape and steal? America and Australia were mainly constituted by people who believed in God. Where does the conscience come from? How did our thoughts evolve? We can do brain scans as much as we like, but we can’t tell what the thoughts are, whether he’s thinking of his lost shoe or his child…. All we see is zig zags on paper.

    Why do so many people believe in gods or God? We’re talking of billions of people. And are we all aimlessly going about day by day with no purpose in life? If there’s no purpose in life than what does it matter what I do or don’t do, what I believe and what I don’t? But if God exists (you would say very unlikely), than I don’t want to risk my whole eternity (again you would say probably not). If God exists I don’t want to entrust my soul to Richard Dawkins and such. If there is no god, than, again, then why should I care about anything? I wont lose anything. I am here today and gone tomorrow. When I die, the world and the earth worms will be none the wiser.

    Now what is science? Word Web “Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation”. Oxford “… through observation”… True science is observable, experimental, and testable. How can you observing what happened yesterday, today? You can make a guess, you make a hypothesis, but you can’t observe it and you can’t test it. You weren’t there billions of years ago, how do you know enough to call it a fact? And as you go back a week, a year, a thousand year, a million years, a billion years— it gets harder and harder and less reliable. There are just way too many assumptions. Plus, you can look at it through different glasses and get completely different results. And the results anyone gets are theories, not science, because you can’t observe it. We can observe gravity, physics, etc. We can use experiments to observe the effects of atoms, electricity, and magnets etc. And we can test them—every day if we really want. But we can’t re-test what happened yonks ago. Saying it was billions of years ago is not science, its your opinion. Saying it was probably was billions of years is still not science, its your opinion and the glasses you look through. There’s just no way of going back to test it. There’s also no history billions of years ago. And every day we’re getting further away. If anyone says that you can’t prove God exists scientifically, than you also can’t prove he doesn’t exist scientifically.

    You talk about the consensus… copy paste is what I was accused of. Numbers don’t define truth. Consensus changes. The consensus? So is this trust? So this is faith? I thought everyone was accusing me of faith not proof. Most people aren’t scientists, so if everyone agreed with evolution, for the majority of people (at least) believing in no god will be a faith. A faith, not science. The idea of saying there is no god is not new, it’s just popular, because than everyone can have an excuse to rebel, do what they want, think what they want. And that’s what we are seeing more and more today. Abortion, drugs, rapes, murder…

    What do I base truth on? Ultimately on God’s Word (and everyone hates me saying this). He has changed my life, my desires, and my all, I cannot deny Him. There always have and always will be people who say there’s no god, say the bible is not true, and twist the bible—even the bible says this. It also says satan is the prince of this world and that mankind hates God. That’s how I would explain all the different religions/consensuses.



    Report abuse

  • 109
    RealEyes says:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    Tell me. If there is no God than where did the idea of morals come from? Where did right and wrong come from?

    The answer to this one, I think, is reasonably obvious to the rational mind. That is, what we call morality (a sense of right and wrong, if you will) is ‘innate in us’ (most likely emerging as a result of evolution). I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that our sense of right and wrong generally serves the human interest and human survival, nor do I believe for one minute that we would be devoid of a sense of right and wrong in the absence of religion. We wouldn’t be able to call that sense of right and wrong a ‘universal morality’, but we are assuming that such a concept must exist. Morality is a concept unique to the human mind and varies from one culture to the next and from one religion to the next. In my view, morality generally re-enforces the prevailing opinion of the time – which is generally in-line with the human interest. There are lots of moral claims in religious scripture (representing the opinion of the time) that are now denounced or frowned upon as they are considered unsavoury or immoral to the modern mind. That, to me, suggests that morality is flexible or changeable (as a human concept, derived by or emerging from the human mind) and not, in fact, universal.

    To account for why we do ‘good’ in the world in the absence of a belief in the supernatural, as I eluded to previously, may be explained in terms of human survival. For instance, if we help another human being in a time of need, then we may in turn expect the same treatment when we find ourselves in a similar position. I admit that the motivation is therefore selfish and perhaps unsavoury, but that doesn’t detract from the plausibility. Besides, the same may also be said of religious morality where the primary motivation is to secure eternal bliss for the self (freely admitting that without religious teachings there would be no reason to be good, or to behave with moral integrity). Beyond the selfish, survivalist explanation, I’m also inclined toward the emotion of Empathy as a likely explanation. We know how we feel when we are hurt, we know how we feel when we are happy. Real emotions with human definitions. The human consciousness is able to assume (or empathise) that other humans are able to experience the same emotions (and indeed validate that assumption via communication). To many human beings, including atheists, the thought of committing an act against another human being that we know would hurt ourselves is inherently repulsive. It’s not repulsive because we fear the wrath of God, but because it goes against the fibre of our being. We can imagine the victim’s pain, empathically. Of course, it may also be suggested that the emotion of Empathy serves in the interests of human survival and thus evolved accordingly.
    To me, it seems rational that we would avoid behaviour that we ourselves find repulsive, when inflicted upon ourselves. Of course, we often learn of the ill-consequences of certain behaviours (that may not be immediately apparent) in retrospect, which is why I think that morality is evolutionary and changeable.

    There’s a lot more to be said on this subject, however I don’t think it’s fair to assume that morality, or a sense of right and wrong, wouldn’t exist outside of religion. To the contrary, I would suggest that religion was contrived on the back of and in an attempt to promote man’s current sense of right and wrong.

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    Why do so many people believe in gods or God? We’re talking of billions of people. And are we all aimlessly going about day by day with no purpose in life? …

    You’re assuming the selfish, human position. Rather than an objective one, that values the truth. You’re assuming that there must be a purpose to our lives. You’re assuming that it would be objectively bad if there was no divine purpose for us. That may be so, in your human judgement, but that doesn’t mean we can deny it on that basis alone. A disbelief in God does not nullify any sense of purpose in life, nor does it abolish any reason to care. Life and the universe around us is beyond majestic and we truly do underestimate how fortunate we are to experience it. If the reality is (or evidence suggests that) your religious teachings are wrong, that doesn’t change the fact that we are here. It doesn’t mean that we can’t marvel at the world around us and attempt to understand it. It doesn’t mean we can’t find enjoyment and a sense of purpose in this life, while we are here to experience it. We can’t promise you eternal happiness, but nor should we unless we have sufficient grounds to make such a claim. We need to drop the idea that the universe exists to make us happy. That if we simply believe it, it makes it so. I’d also like to point out that if you ONLY believe in your God because of the carrot and stick (heaven and hell) then you’re going straight to hell even if he does exist (according to your own scripture). You must believe in your heart, it is not enough to believe it just in case.

    The rest of your post was, as far as I could tell, focused on science. In particular, you suggest that we couldn’t possibly know what happened billions of years ago because we were not there. I’m sure someone else will be happy to dignify that with a response. One thing I will say is that science doesn’t simply ‘say’ that the Earth is billions of years old as a matter of opinion. If you believe that, then you do not understand the very essence of science. And to accuse disbelief in something that there is little or no reason to believe in as ‘faith’, is desperate at best. These are of course, my opinions.



    Report abuse

  • 110
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #106 by jbjb:

    One thing I do know is that you don’t have to be an athiest to be a good scientist or engineer… so many of our excellent scientists in history believed in intelligent design, and believing in that didn’t hinder them.

    I’m afraid you are just expressing your ignorance here. Intelligent design was invented in 1989 to try to get around the the constitutional prohibition on religious teaching in schools in the USA. There are NO scientists excellent or otherwise believing in ID before that date.

    From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the “intelligent design movement”.[17][n 2] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science,

    There are NO “excellent scientists” believing in the pseudo-science of ID – although there are lots of scientists who have been religious.
    The ID crowd are certainly hindered from understanding science by their determination to sit in denial of the evidenced methodology needed to be an effective scientist. They just make up comically incompetent junk!



    Report abuse

  • 111
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #107 by jbjb:

    In reply to #66 by Alan4discussion:

    “you need to say which one”

    Compared to other religions, how is Christianity different? How is the Bible different to other books?

    It isn’t much different to other books of bronze-age myths. In fact many OT stories are copied versions of earlier myths from other religions. Most of the NT was not written until decades or centuries after supposed events.

    Every other religion is salvation not by God alone, but through man’s works. repeat man’s works. Salvation described in the bible, however, is not reliant on man and his works, but by God alone.

    Just like so many other religious claims for other gods!

    All other religions attribute salvation fully to man, or add on to God for salvation.

    It seems you have not studied them or you would know that this is false, but you seem to be just repeating some nonsense some preacher has told you.

    The bible describes man as he really is along with how man can be saved.

    AH! THE BIBLE! – Have you actually read all of it, or are you just repeating what some ignoramus has told you?



    Report abuse

  • 112
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    What do I base truth on? Ultimately on God’s Word

    That is of course personal introspection rather than objective study.
    It is well known where “God’s word” comes from:-

    “We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

    (and everyone hates me saying this).

    Nobody hates you for this, – they just sympathise at your lack of a proper scientific education.

    He has changed my life, my desires, and my all, I cannot deny Him.

    “He” is part of your brain, and has become dominant so “HE” won’t let you! – Sad when there is so much reality outside to be understood.

    @108 – Touching on transitional fossil links, take Archaeopteryx for example. Not even all evolutionists agree that this can be a missing link, never mind the multitude of creationists.

    I explained “transitional features” @88 All living species are “transitional” until they go extinct. The geneticists can trace the details without needing fossils.
    The whole system of biological classification is based on understanding relationships and ancestral transitions, between species.
    It really does not matter if Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of modern birds or the cousin of an ancestor of modern birds. Some other feathered dinosaur may have been their ancestor.

    You are still collecting nonsense from incredulous ignoramuses, rather than learning from reputable educational sources!



    Report abuse

  • 113
    Kataryn says:

    If there was a court case, The Judge would have to determine the reliability of witnesses, reliability of their testimony. Terms would have to be defined for common usage. (Perhaps you’d have to start a new comment and branch off into another thread “comparative religions.”)

    People do and have questioned the existence of Jesus. -You’d have to prove that the historicity jesus existed AND that he’s the same as the jesus of the bible (Religious people can’t even agree on that. Some religions say he’s Yahweh, some say he was a prophet, others say he was an angel).

    People have raised issues with the bible’s authority (various religions debate on what scriptures to include, what to exclude, what books to follow.), plagiarism (commonality with other religions), accuracy (both internal and external).

    “heart” and “sin” would have to be defined in scientific terms. The Hebrew Scriptures describe the “heart” as the seat of motivation. There’s emotive descriptions for “kidney” and liver. Neurology has clearly shown these to be not true.

    The claim that nature proves the existence of a creator (which one?), isn’t any demonstration:
    zero point energy constantly “creates” pairs of +/- particles -where did they come from? Krauss http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468 claims this energy field that is expanding space could have initially created the universe provided it has a zero value.

    As previously mentioned, these ideas are difficult if not impossible to define: “nothing” and “god.” how can one define outside of the universe, using tools that only describe within the universe?

    What criteria would one use to prove or disprove deities? To me, the best disproof has been the behavior of the deities’ followers: child sacrifice, child molestation, rape, and abuse. -Whether one is talking about Hari Krishnas, the Catholic hierarchy, Baal worshipers, these behaviors are entrenched. Such despicably, immorally, hypocritical, abusive behavior, seems an established practice. -Despite all their holy books forbidding these practices. (often explicitly).

    Where was the Catholic god 50 years ago, when all these cases were going on undiscovered? When Baal and the Aztech god stopped receiving sacrifice why did the Earth continue to spin? What was Krishna doing in the 90’s in regard to the pedophile cases?

    Where are all these gods? Eyes they’re said to have… do they not see? Ears we are told they have… do they not hear the loud out cry of prayer? What kind of human could refrain from inaction before their face? What kind of god? -Such a deity, if they exist, would have to have a mighty good reason. Or be not simply disinterested in humanity, but malevolent.

    However, -I had been informed about an apologist argument about the issue of “sanctification” and “vindication.” That the bible-god’s excuse was that humanity essentially told Yahweh we wanted to do things without it. I’m not sure if that’s a good reason: if there was a clutch of rebellious children who were forcibly evicted from their parents’ home what parents would let their children starve, what parents wouldn’t aid these? Under what circumstances (well apparently 1/4 of homeless children are gay… so Fundamentalists’ parents answers the previous).

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2011%2F07%2F110721163031.htm&ei=djmFUtWGA6nwyQGD04HIDw&usg=AFQjCNGKMpJ_6YFP5hVBjH8dTbDXrrWiWA&sig2=sY78E8xPShQbBXFp5poiiw&bvm=bv.56343320,d.aWc

    But all these tangents’ don’t answer the question of the existentialism of a diety(s). They may/not explain inaction of such a diety, but not whether it exists.

    What thought experiment could one run in order to provide evidence towards (if not proof)

    In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.
    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature.
    Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Nature itself is…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #110 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    then you’re going straight to hell even if he does exist (according to your own scripture)

    And I deserve to. But you haven’t read the bible. The bible is full of salvation. John 3:16 “For God so loved the word that he gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”



    Report abuse

  • 115
    Ryan1306 says:

    That’s a terrible thing to say. You don’t deserve to be tortured for eternity for not being perfect. And as far as John 3:16 goes, who did god give Jesus to? As far as I can tell it was himself considering Jesus went straight to heaven after he died. And it was god I remind you that decided the way he wanted to forgive people was to sacrifice him self. Nobody told it to do that. He could have just said I forgive you but I guess it would lose the guilt trip part of the story if it did that.

    In reply to #115 by jbjb:

    In reply to #110 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    then you’re going straight to hell even if he does exist (according to your own scripture)

    And I deserve to. But you haven’t read the bible. The bible is full of salvation. John 3:16 “For God so loved the word that he gave His only Son that…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #116 by Ryan1306:

    That’s a terrible thing to say. You don’t deserve to be tortured for eternity for not being perfect. And as far as John 3:16 goes, who did god give Jesus to? As far as I can tell it was himself considering Jesus went straight to heaven after he died. And it was god I remind you that decided the way…

    You do not understand how holy God is. God cannot just say I forgive you, that would be unjust. The amazing thing is He has provided a way, a substitute. Why did He decide to save? That’s what I can’t fathom, that he would take a rotten sinner like me, put the punishment on Jesus, and forgive me. God had every right to leave me as I deserve.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #114 by Kataryn:

    “heart” and “sin” would have to be defined in scientific terms. The Hebrew Scriptures describe the “heart” as the seat of motivation. There’s emotive descriptions for “kidney” and liver. Neurology has clearly shown these to be not true.

    First of all, where did you get this from the bible? I want to look it up



    Report abuse

  • 118
    Marktony says:

    Heaven has a plan for you

    In reply to #117 by jbjb:

    In reply to #116 by Ryan1306:

    That’s a terrible thing to say. You don’t deserve to be tortured for eternity for not being perfect. And as far as John 3:16 goes, who did god give Jesus to? As far as I can tell it was himself considering Jesus went straight to heaven after he died. And it was god I r…



    Report abuse

  • 119
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #117 by jbjb:

    You do not understand how holy God is. God cannot just say I forgive you, that would be unjust. The amazing thing is He has provided a way, a substitute. Why did He decide to save? That’s what I can’t fathom, that he would take a rotten sinner like me, put the punishment on Jesus, and forgive me. God had every right to leave me as I deserve.

    God cannot just say “I forgive you”? I thought he was all powerful and could do anything. As for it being “unjust”, I thought God was the one who set the rules in the first place and decides what is just or not. So if God decides to do something, isn’t it automatically “just” because he did it?

    Basically, you’re describing a situation where God created the entire universe and defined the laws of justice in such a way that the default position for all of humanity is to be tortured in hell forever. Even if you blame it all on Adam and Eve’s “original sin”, God made the rules of justice that hold every single human since Adam and Eve accountable for that sin which they did not commit themselves. Sure, God then offers a “way out,” but only to a tiny, tiny, percentage of all of humanity (consider all the people who lived before Jesus came and all the people who lived in countries where they never had a chance to hear about him). God could certainly be all-knowing and all powerful under this situation, but certainly not all-loving. So either he doesn’t exist at all or is a complete and utter bastard who delights in the suffering of his children.

    The fact that you actually seem to believe that you are a “rotten sinner” deserving of eternal damnation simply by virtue of the fact that you were born (which, once again, is all part of God’s plan and not something you had a choice about) is probably the saddest part about all of this.



    Report abuse

  • 121
    crookedshoes says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA…
    He made ME didn’t he?

    AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

    Fucking ridiculous stance.Untenable, indefensible. Every single holy person that you know and hold above you as knowledgable would shit on you for this statement. This has gone round and round enough for me to step in.

    Your belief system is a piece of dog shit. Your defense of your belief system is a piece of …..godshit. (I tried to type “dog” BUT it must be a sign that I am correct—– it came out as “god”)

    You are alone in your stance. And overmatched. and revealed as delusional. It is clear as day for all to see. Thank you for the fuel necessary to burn your deity. This delusion is not sustainable, and although you are bought into it, no one else is. YOU ARE ALONE. Enjoy the ride DOWN for your sin of clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting “paradise”.

    In reply to #121 by jbjb:

    In reply to #120 by godzillatemple:

    God can do anything within His holy will. God cannot sin or make an error



    Report abuse

  • 122
    crookedshoes says:

    BTW,
    I have the feeling my last post is gonna be removed. But, i ask the mods, how can you let this person’s HATE stand? Do not mistake, this is HATE.



    Report abuse

  • 124
    godzillatemple says:

    In reply to #121 by jbjb:

    In reply to #120 by godzillatemple:

    God can do anything within His holy will. God cannot sin or make an error.

    And? That just means that God chose to create a universe where the majority of his children will suffer in indescribable torment for all eternity. He could have created a different set of laws, but it wasn’t his “will” to do so.

    This whole thread was about the proof of God’s existence. Right now you are not offering any proofs, but just spouting descriptions of what you thing God is like. How do you know God is all-powerful, cannot sin and cannot make an error? Because it says so in the Bible? Then how do you know the Bible is true? Because God said it was true (in the bible)? Because this is what you’ve been taught at home?

    There are all sorts of reason why people believe in one sort of god or another. Fear of death and a desire for there to be something more. Family traditions. Cultural and societal traditions. A need to see patterns and order in places where they don’t exist. Emotional responses to various experiences. An inability to understand the complexity of the world and an unwillingness to live with that inability. Sheer gullibility. These may all be valid reasons to believe, but none of them offer any proof whatsoever as to God’s existence.

    As I’ve said before, science has done a wonderful job of explaining just about every facet of creation to the point that “God” is no longer a necessary explanation for anything. Yes, scientific theories come and go (or get refined over time), and something that we think we can fully explain today may turn out to have a different explanation later on. But even if every single scientific theory ever advanced to explain the universe was completely and utterly wrong, there still wouldn’t be a single bit of good evidence to believe in the God of the Bible (or any of the many, many other gods that have been written about over the past thousands of years). And believe me, there are plenty of Muslims who are just as convinced that Allah, as described in the Koran, is the one true God and not the God of the Bible. And they make the same exact arguments as you do to justify their belief. They are just as sure, just as convinced, and just as wrong.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #115 by jbjb:

    In reply to #110 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    then you’re going straight to hell even if he does exist (according to your own scripture)

    And I deserve to. But you haven’t read the bible. The bible is full of salvation. John 3:16 “For God so loved the word that he gave His only Son that…

    I suspect you have only read isolated sentences in the bible. Sentences that happen to support your notions of Christianity that appear kind, fair and reasonable. If you were to start from the beginning and read continuously from cover to cover as many here have done, you’d probably get a very different impression. If you cherry pick sections of the telephone book, you’d be able to support the notion that it is a book with benign intent! The bible is a barbaric piece of primitive literature! Don’t believe me….read it!

    I can’t let you get away with your assertions that without religion, people would be running amok stealing, raping, looting, killing etc. when you look around is that what you see? If the correlation went in that direction jails would be full of atheists, would they not?
    This is not the case. 98% of prison inmates profess to believe in god. That statistic is considerably higher than the general population ,(even the population of America, the most religious western nation).

    In fact countries with lowest participation rates in organised religion are the most law abiding. On the other hand places with extremely high rates of violent crime such as Central and South America have high rates of religiosity. This tendency is evident amongst states in the US as well. States with a high rate of religious observance also have a high rates of crime. There are probably many factors influencing the statistics, but you’re not justified in linking atheism with immoral behaviour.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #122 by crookedshoes:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA…
    He made ME didn’t he?

    AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

    Fucking ridiculous stance.Untenable, indefensible. Every single holy person that you know and hold above you as knowledgable would shit on you for this statement. This has gone round and…

    Go easy! He might be really young! He said that he was in his teens….that could mean 13 or 14.



    Report abuse

  • 127
    crookedshoes says:

    Sorry, I missed the “young” comment. I will back off. Thanks for calling foul.

    In reply to #127 by Nitya:

    In reply to #122 by crookedshoes:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA…
    He made ME didn’t he?

    AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

    Fucking ridiculous stance.Untenable, indefensible. Every single holy person that you know and hold above you as knowledgable would shit on you for this…



    Report abuse

  • 128
    crookedshoes says:

    Christ, now you are thinking for Richard? Wow. I’ll pass. There’s nothing personal. This has been really really revealing. You have most certainly left lots of people “more clear” on their positions. Thank you for your “invaluable” input. I’ll back off now.

    PS. please do not post your personal stuff, even though it initially goes under the mods radar, they will take it down. And, even though we are “oppositional”, I’d NOT be ok with some unscrupulous troll using your personal info to somehow kick your rear end. Please, no matter how frustrated or self righteous you feel, do not post your personal stuff again. It leaves you open to all sorts of bad stuff. And, although I vehemently oppose your stances here, I’d never be ok with any harm (even financial) coming to you.

    I won’t patronize you with the “I didn’t know you were a kid… routine”.. But, your adherence to your beliefs is admirable, even if I think you are wrong. Again, do not publish stuff that the website, itself, keeps private.

    Peace.

    In reply to #129 by jbjb:

    In reply to #127 by Nitya:

    In reply to #122 by crookedshoes:

    I don’t think Richard Dawkins would want us continue posting on his website? Maybe maybe not.



    Report abuse

  • 129
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #129 by jbjb:

    In reply to #127 by Nitya:

    In reply to #122 by crookedshoes:

    I don’t think Richard Dawkins would want us continue posting on his website done this line? Maybe maybe not. Anyway, if anyone wants to continue anything more, or anything personal, I am happy to use email, where nothing will be public (…

    Like crookedshoes says you are better off not using your email address in public. If you want to make contact with someone from here get a disposable email address and post that. Just google “disposable email address”. The person in question can email you their real address to your disposable one.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 130
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #115 by jbjb:

    In reply to #110 by RealEyes:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    then you’re going straight to hell even if he does exist (according to your own scripture)

    And I deserve to. But you haven’t read the bible. The bible is full of salvation. John 3:16 “For God so loved the word that he gave His only Son that…

    If all you’ve got is preachy biblical quotes then it would be better not to bother. Seriously. We’ve all heard this stuff so many times before.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 132
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #121 by jbjb:

    In reply to #120 by godzillatemple:

    God can do anything within His holy will. God cannot sin or make an error

    Only if you refuse to believe the dire actions attributed to their god in the bible are antisocial.

    Perhaps you should read this discussion thread which contains some of the bits you seem to have missed:-

    http://www.www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/11/14/new-bible-book-is-awkward-on-purpose-illustrations-meant-to-stir-critical-thinking#



    Report abuse

  • 133
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #117 by jbjb:

    That’s what I can’t fathom, that he would take a rotten sinner like me, put the punishment on Jesus, and forgive me. God had every right to leave me as I deserve.

    Eventually you may work out that these is just a stories made up to manipulate and frighten children.
    If you check the history books, – while some itinerant preacher named Jesus may have existed among the hundreds of Jewish preachers wandering around at that time, there is no mention of any such person – let alone their activities, in the Roman records. There are only the myths in the picked gospel stories chosen by Roman bishops to put in their version of the bible in AD325.
    There are other “gospels” which tell different stories!

    Gospel of Judas

    Gospel of Philip

    Gospel of Mary

    .. But none of these supposed activities are quoted by Roman historians – who kept detailed records of events.



    Report abuse

  • 134
    Moderator says:

    Moderators’ message

    1. The preaching needs to stop, please. Statements about sin and wretches and salvation and hell merely repeat Christian dogma without doing anything to demonstrate why that dogma should be considered true. Stating that God is holy and just etc is also not an argument, but only a repetition of Christian claims. Merely repeating the teachings of Christianity is preaching, and preaching is against our Terms of Use.

    The topic of the OP is proof of god’s existence. If anyone wishes to try to provide proof of a god’s or gods’ existence, they are welcome to do so on this thread, but if all they have is Bible quotes, please do not bother, as that again is merely repeating the claims without attempting to support them with arguments showing why they should be considered to be true. Preaching, in other words.

    This is our second and final warning on this.

    2. Please don’t post email addresses on the site. If anyone wishes to contact a specific user privately, that can be facilitated via the mods, with the user’s permission.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • 135
    Tyler Durden says:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    Why do so many people believe in gods or God? We’re talking of billions of people.

    Why do so many children believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? We’re talking of billions of children.



    Report abuse

  • 136
    Tyler Durden says:

    In reply to #96 by jbjb:

    Don’t misunderstand me here. I said I can’t prove to YOU with science, quite frankly, because I as I said before, I don’t know an awful lot about it.

    Scientists don’t deal in proof.

    That’s for mathematicians, logicians, and whiskey.



    Report abuse

  • 137
    Tyler Durden says:

    In reply to #121 by jbjb:

    In reply to #120 by godzillatemple:

    God can do anything within His holy will. God cannot sin or make an error

    Your bible is littered with errors. Who is to blame for that?



    Report abuse

  • 138
    aldous says:

    In reply to #138 by Tyler Durden:

    Scientists don’t deal in proof.

    I don’t think the rest of us have to be bound by the professional niceties of a very small percentage of the population. Richard Dawkins took off his scientist’s hat to give us a compelling disproof of God’s existence in The God Delusion.

    It’s the following.

    The Creator God is an intelligent being. However, intelligence is a property of evolved brains. Therefore, even if a god existed, he could only have come into existence very recently and was not present 14 billion years ago at the birth of the universe.



    Report abuse

  • 139
    crookedshoes says:

    Scientists don’t take off their scientist hat.

    In reply to #140 by aldous:

    In reply to #138 by Tyler Durden:

    Scientists don’t deal in proof.

    I don’t think the rest of us have to be bound by the professional niceties of a very small percentage of the population. Richard Dawkins took off his scientist’s hat to give us a compelling disproof of God’s existence in The God Del…



    Report abuse

  • 140
    aldous says:

    In reply to #141 by crookedshoes:

    Scientists don’t take off their scientist hat.

    The God-the-Creator thesis cannot be refuted scientifically because it’s not a scientific thesis. ‘Science’ ,fortunately, is only one form of rational discourse and Dawkins refutes the thesis in common sense terms. Just how could an intelligent creator have made the universe (even the piddling little universe of the ancient Near East) when even simply human intelligence did not emerge until the last million years or so in the lifespan of a universe that is 14 billion years old?



    Report abuse

  • 141
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #142 by aldous:

    In reply to #141 by crookedshoes:

    Scientists don’t take off their scientist hat.

    The God-the-Creator thesis cannot be refuted scientifically because it’s not a scientific thesis. ‘Science’ ,fortunately, is only one form of rational discourse and Dawkins refutes the thesis in common sense terms. .. . .

    It can be refuted because it is not a scientific thesis. It is a circular claim with an irrational infinite regression!

    Turtles all the way downhttp://talkingincircles.net/2009/03/16/turtles-all-the-way-down-intelligent-design-and-infinite-regression/

    The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”

    . . . … . it’s a great point to launch a discussion from — namely, a discussion about the infinite regress argument.



    Report abuse

  • 142
    aldous says:

    In reply to #143 by Alan4discussion:

    It can be refuted because it is not a scientific thesis

    Yes, exactly. It can be refuted by any rational and ordinarily educated person. No need for a Ph.D.



    Report abuse

  • 143
    Kataryn says:

    cited from insight on the scriptures pg 1057-1059. Here is an online version of their library.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001948

    The point I tried to make, but failed, is that one cannot take the Scriptures as literally true in many instances. The bible is full of idoms “a jew pissing on a wall” metaphors job was saved by “the skin of his teeth” sorry my time is running out. I cannot complete my thought. I’d like to believe in a deity but often I find contrary indications.

    In reply to #118 by jbjb:

    In reply to #114 by Kataryn:

    “heart” and “sin” would have to be defined in scientific terms. The Hebrew Scriptures describe the “heart” as the seat of motivation. There’s emotive descriptions for “kidney” and liver. Neurology has clearly shown these to be not true.

    First of all, where did you get…



    Report abuse

  • 144
    thetimidmortal says:

    This line of argumentation seems to denote that the effects of a deity within material reality could only be staple evidence by amounting to be some scientifically inexplicable phenomena or else there would no deity. And then it stamps the argumentations rubric out by “recognizing” it for its stupidity. In all reality, what is presented above is merely a setup of cardboard thin argumentation for deity by the author that is then knocked down pridefully with a swift quick of unintelligent, condescending arrogance. But if this is the only proof that the author can conjure up for existence of a deity which is so easily knocked down, I question the intelligence of the author who posted such tripe.



    Report abuse

  • 145
    crookedshoes says:

    It is a matter of semantics. Common sense and rational thinking ARE the “scientist hat”!!!! Everyone is engaged in science when they approach a problem in a certain way. You are correct, no Ph D required.

    In reply to #144 by aldous:

    In reply to #143 by Alan4discussion:

    It can be refuted because it is not a scientific thesis

    Yes, exactly. It can be refuted by any rational and ordinarily educated person. No need for a Ph.D.



    Report abuse

  • 146
    aldous says:

    In reply to #147 by crookedshoes:

    Everyone is engaged in science when they approach a problem in a certain way.

    If you define science as evidence-based knowledge, then practically everything is ‘science’. Buying a car, investing in the stockmarket, making a plum pudding may be scientific endeavours. Making science a synonym for any activity based on informed belief and logical reasoning gives far too much credit to science, especially as science is a vague term which applies all kinds of disparate disciplines, to physics and sociology alike. As professional activities, scientific disciplines have a body of knowledge, procedures and niceties to be observed which needn’t necessarily be binding on those outside the profession.



    Report abuse

  • 147
    Omegatron says:

    Proof. God should just appear and speak for himself. If he can’t, he should after the event….appear in everyone’s dream with the same message. This shouldn’t be hard for a omnipotent God. He can’t even pull off such a small stunt and he can create the entire universe? Best…we ask him to heal an amputee. If not, he is no different from an empty room of air. Even my fart can prove it’s own presence.



    Report abuse

  • 148
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #148 by aldous:
    >

    If you define science as evidence-based knowledge, then practically everything is ‘science’. Buying a car, investing in the stockmarket, making a plum pudding may be scientific endeavours. Making science a synonym for any activity based on informed belief and logical reasoning gives far too much credit to science,

    Surely that is the point. All practical subjects and evidence gathering techniques, are based on scientific research methods:- history, archaeology, geography, electronics, making or operating a car, measuring ingredients, regulating cooking processes, or making cookers, – The less science – the less exact or reliable the process! Credit where credit is due!



    Report abuse

  • 149
    aldous says:

    In reply to #150 by Alan4discussion:

    All practical subjects and evidence gathering techniques, are based on scientific research methods

    You should put it the other way round. Scientific research methods are based on the same principles of rational investigation as any other academic discipline and, to some extent, in decisions we make in our personal lives. Facts that have been established by science become part of the general culture. There’s an overemphasis on ‘science’ in debates on religion which gives the entirely false impression that it’s an argument between professional scientists and religious believers. Atheism (and similar) is not rocket science, or any other similar kind of science.



    Report abuse

  • 150
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #151 by aldous:

    In reply to #150 by Alan4discussion:

    You should put it the other way round. Scientific research methods are based on the same principles of rational investigation as any other academic discipline and, to some extent,

    You are right to some extent, but, when it comes to investigating to produce the evidenced basis of other subjects, the methods and tools of science and technology, work for the other subjects.

    Radio isotope dating in history and archaeology, satellites and radar scanning in providing maps for geographers and transport systems for business, spell-checkers and electronic dictionaries etc in languages, spreadsheets and calculators in mathematics and accounting.
    Even the dating and text analysis of historic documents and artefacts in theology!

    That is why the make-it-by-faith god-bothers are so keen to dispute the science which refutes their claims, while the reputable academics simply use the scientific results to enhance their work.



    Report abuse

  • 151
    aldous says:

    In reply to #152 by Alan4discussion:

    reputable academics simply use the scientific results to enhance their work

    I agree, of course. The same principles of rational investigation apply across the board, whether we call the discipline in question ‘scientific’ or ‘academic’. Interdisciplinary methodology cuts across specialisms. A scholar of biblical texts will call upon linguistic knowledge, historical studies and forensic investigation of manuscripts. I’m just complaining about the talismanic use of ‘science’ at every turn in discussions of religion, giving the false impression that it’s a battle between science and religion. Common sense and common knowledge are in the front line against primitive beliefs, transmitted from our remote ancestors. Just as well, since professional scientists are a very small percentage of the population and don’t necessarily consider it a good use of their time to go in for polemics.



    Report abuse

  • 152
    Malaidas says:

    This depends upon what you mean by God in my opinion, are we talking about a god in the classic, theist sense, which is to say a revealed god, or a god in the Deist sense. Richard Dawkins’ proof by relative probabilities is a hypothetical proof at best, but the best that science can provide at the moment, however this relates not to a revealed god, but a none revealed god really, such cannot be shown to exist or not exist through empirical evidence by definition. The proof of the pudding for a revealed god is

    a) Miraculous events which cannot be explained through rational means, not that which cannot explain at moment
    b) Accuracy and consistency within a holy book over time, such that the prophetic/visionary power of the author cannot be explained through the academic knowledge when it was written and them guessing correctly would be highly improbable, or better still nigh on impossible.

    In the case of (a), this would be an extremely difficult test to pass, in light of the second clause, however it is necessary: that which seems miraculous today is tomorrow’s scientific fact. To pass it I think you’d need to demonstrate multiple such miracles under appropriate conditions. The Problem is that no such miracles have been shown to be valid, any more than any tests of psychic ability etc. Religion always fails to deliver the evidence to back up its claims. Of course perhaps this is the Will of God! I will cover what I see as the problems with this at the end as its a bit lengthy.

    b) This should be the clincher for any ‘Faith’ that is correct. Unfortunately the bible at least, (for fairness I cannot comment on the Quran etc. as I haven’t studied them), is very slim on those facts it claims which can be verified to be correct. Where-ever it makes claims about the physical world, it universally shows incorrect answers to what could not be readily observed at the time. Basically no visionary power is being shown. This is why Science and Religion are so incompatible, you either believe in what seems to be the fantasy created by the biblical account, or in what rationally performed observation shows you. This to me is as near to disproof of the biblical account as can be achieved. It simply doesn’t hold up to study, unless you start with the assumption that it is true and then make up reasons for why the evidence doesn’t match up. This is an irrational stance, you always try to prove a theory wrong not the other way round and accept only that which isn’t proven wrong, and if 2 theories are equal you then temporary perhaps, select the simpler of the 2, simply because there is no other reason to select between them, (Occam’s Razor in its true interpretation).

    Never the less these are the 2 things which would prove god and they would require to be shown in significant quantity along with explanation as to why what we have seen so far contradicts this.

    …..

    Coming back to the first point about the Will of God. It is a fundamental problem that if you have an intelligence behind things, then unlike the natural laws, he/she doesn’t have to perform on demand and as such it might seem that any rational investigation would show only the results that God wished us to see. However this reasoning in itself is a problem I would say. The big question has to be, why would god wish to disprove his/her own existence? If we are to believe the theists claim that god is a fair, kind, loving, perfect being, (ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the old testament for the time being), then he/she created us with the ability to question and reason out the world around us, after all God created man, not Satan, therefore if he/she cannot be both fair and judge us for questioning, accepting the claim that he/she is fair, then we must therefore reject the conclusion that questioning is sinful. Far from being a test of our Faith, which by definition would be unfair, he/she should rejoice in our quest for knowledge and support it, since he/she created us to do so.

    The Will of God argument falls down, unless you accept that God isn’t any of those things and is instead a petty minded, judgemental, sadistic…. (For the full description, see ‘The God Delusion’). It is difficult to take the argument further than this, seeing as once you have such a nasty being at the centre of all things, anything could be true. We cannot trust either the old testament or science for any answers, he/she could be fooling us at any moment in any place. far from having a faith in gods existence you should put your faith or belief in nothing at all. However as a provisional theorem, we could say that as this suggests a world that is infinitely unknown and complex, and would be indistinguishable from the world we see, by Occam we would reject the claim, pending evidence to the contrary. Falling back on the counter claim that God of the Bible doesn’t exist.

    Now you might worry about your mortal soul going to hell for not doing what god is telling you but I argue this

    1) If he/she is evil and untrustworthy as suggested above, then how can you trust that anything you do will make any difference?
    2) If he/she is fair, he/she could not judge you for not believing in him/her, due to lack of evidence
    3) You cannot obey every part of the bible its impossible owing to its contradictions, therefore no matter what you do you will be sinning.

    In other words believing is likely to have no advantage over not believing and you may as well choose one which at least makes rational sense.

    Finally, I want to outline a methodology for proving god to the theists. One you must make predictions and show evidence which not only shows your theory not to be wrong, but also show’s science to be wrong. Two you must show that your theory is consistent with all the known evidence, 3 you must continue to try and destroy your own theory by making predictions… That is the measure which science demands of its own theories, because it is the only way to determine fact from fiction.

    Pseudo-scientists (including creationist scientists) tend to leap on the one bit of evidence which would show that their theory might be correct, but then ignore the fact that science might also predict it, or the fact that their theory doesn’t agree with the rest of the evidence, not withstanding the blatant attempts at misdirection, such as the erroneous claims about Entropy etc.

    If you want to try and prove God exists, in so far as anything is possible to be proven, go and gather reasonable, reliable evidence, that would show Science to be wrong and Theism to not be wrong.



    Report abuse

  • 153
    Malaidas says:

    in fact there is one very easy way in which God could demonstrate his/her existence to be honest. Appear in his/her full glory, rebuild the earth before our eyes, show that he/she knows our inner most desires etc. That would be empirical proof. As this isn’t going to happen, at least until ‘The End of Days’, if you are a believer then what I said above will have to suffice.

    With respect to this however, I would hold that a loving God would do this, free will is meaningless if you are being judged for your actions in an unfair test, (as described), such as is proposed by theists.



    Report abuse

  • 156
    Stew282 says:

    In reply to #157 by vinny.pop.3:

    Proof of Gods existance please explain this incredible image using science or anything you please. PS the image has not been faked it has appeared and disappeared as told in clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnhVkP5fbS4

    Vinny,
    There’s also a ‘miracle’ Islamic crescent just above it! …And I can see a ‘miracle’ keyhole on the left, a ‘miracle’ WW1 gas mask (bottom left), a ‘miracle’ map of France (light area southeast of the cross), a ‘miracle’ witch’s face, several more ‘miracle’ faces, some ‘miracle’ constellations…



    Report abuse

  • 158
    Robert Watkin says:

    Who say’s the bible is god’s word. What evidence to you have to back support your assertion ?In reply to #14 by jbjb:

    We have the bible, God’s Word.
    The miracles Jesus did didn’t turn the pharisees to Him. No sign or wonder in itself has the power to turn us to God. This is because of the problem of our hearts and our sinfull nature.
    Psalm 19 starts by saying “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Nature itself is…



    Report abuse

  • 159
    David vR says:

    The issue as I see it is not the existence of God, but whether he/she/it intervenes in life. God s usually defined as the creator of the universe. The question is for what else can responsibility be attributed? Proof of a benevolent God would be: the birth of no more deformed or handicapped babies; no more violent earthquakes without adequate warnings; suspension of the laws of probability; and so on.



    Report abuse

  • 160
    jimbobjim says:

    Two thoughts:
    1. Is it a matter of “proof” or “evidence”, and are they different? Probably the fact is that we read/listen/consider the arguments on both sides and reach a conclusion – which may or may not be correct.
    2. Someone made the comment about Hitchens coming back. The truth is that most people in here are by nature Sceptic. If Hitchens came back and said “there is a God etc”. We wouldn’t believe him and assume that a) he hadn’t really dies, b) he was a fake Hitchens or Say c) he had been hiding out in the mental hospital since faking his own death.



    Report abuse

  • 161
    crzylmy says:

    The only difference between a theist and an atheist is an opinion and the best part is.. neither one of them know the truth so, I am putting my faith in scientists, that eventually someday with new technology ,they will find prove that God does or does not exist, although in my opinion, it would seem easier to prove the existence of a God “because”..he has been called intelligent designer .

    If Evolution is responsible for creating man and if you want to go a little further, evolution is also responsible for man creating religions . If there is no god unfortunately everything happening on the planet is a result of evolutions inability to control us . It lets god of the hook , evolution is to blame for everything wrong with its creation of man made religions.. can evolution correct the mistakes if it can what the bleep is it waiting for 😉

    OK I admit I don’t know much about either, I just find both sides of the argument interesting will there ever be an answer ??



    Report abuse

  • 162
    crzylmy says:

    I was watching Richard Dawkins in discussion with Peter Boghossian (24/10/13) when they were asked “what would it take for them to believe God exists?”

    another answer was .. the second coming of Jesus , with proof that can be verified !!
    wow what a challenge to the one he doesn’t believe in 🙂



    Report abuse

  • 164
    OHooligan says:

    In reply to #137 by Tyler Durden:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    Why do so many people believe in gods or God? We’re talking of billions of people.

    Why do so many children believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? We’re talking of billions of children.

    Santa Claus Was An Inside Job!!!!

    As for the Tooth Fairy, don’t get me started. At least Santa Claus confines his incredible activities to one night a year.



    Report abuse

  • 166
    Robert-Evans says:

    Evidence of God is within firstly and then without. This is the First Principle, and also incredibly simple. Atheist Materialists always misunderstand the argument because of their own agenda and fail to hear the explanation given by others. (Admittedly, some believers do not hold a very full account)
    It is always interesting that the idea that seems to always come to mind to atheists, is always something they could see with their eyes, (as if eyes cannot be fooled.) Bringing something Metaphysical into a Physical world will always fail as an explanation, but always acceptable to a gullible mind.



    Report abuse

  • 167
    Robert-Evans says:

    If you are doing the childish idea of comparing the “tooth fairy” with God, then you are showing your ignorance on the subject, and your lack to debate and understand…always the mark of an atheist. One might well do the same with science and compare it will a child’s building blocks…. the point of course would be ridiculous.
    In reply to #167 by OHooligan:

    In reply to #137 by Tyler Durden:

    In reply to #109 by jbjb:

    Why do so many people believe in gods or God? We’re talking of billions of people.

    Why do so many children believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? We’re talking of billions of children.

    Santa Claus Was An Inside Job!!!!

    As for the T…



    Report abuse

  • 168
    Robert-Evans says:

    I reply to you because, so far, you are the most open. One point that is wrong however: Those who are enabled by God, do have the Truth. That is not to say that they understanding everything however. But it would, by sheer logic, sound more likely that Intelligence is behind everything rather than luck, even if it is in a way that mainstream religion, and therefore most of humanity, do not fully understand..
    In reply to #164 by crzylmy:

    The only difference between a theist and an atheist is an opinion and the best part is.. neither one of them know the truth so, I am putting my faith in scientists, that eventually someday with new technology ,they will find prove that God does or does not exist, although in my opinion, it would see…



    Report abuse

  • 169
    Peter Grant says:

    In reply to #171 by Robert-Evans:

    But it would, by sheer logic, sound more likely that Intelligence is behind everything rather than luck,

    So now you deem yourself fit to make pronouncements on a logic you do not understand? Very deep.



    Report abuse

  • 170
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #170 by Robert-Evans:
    >

    then you are showing your ignorance on the subject, and your lack to debate and understand…always the mark of an atheist.

    Gosh. You’re just trying to soften us up with compliments aren’t you.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 171
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #171 by Robert-Evans:

    But it would, by sheer logic, sound more likely that Intelligence is behind everything rather than luck,

    Which everything have you got in mind ? We know that the rich diversity of life that we see can arise from simple reproducing cells by natural selection. No need for an intelligence behind the scenes.

    Or was it some other everything?

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 172
    Moderator says:

    Moderators’ message

    Users are welcome to argue any point they wish to on this site, provided it is on topic, but we do require those arguments to made civilly and rationally, and without insulting or abusing other users.

    The ethos and requirements of the site are set out in our Terms and Conditions, which can be found at the foot of each page.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • 173
    naskew says:

    Proof of the existence of a god may be made difficult by the need for some kind of absolute proof. Of course in biblical times it was as simple as getting him to light some soggy bonfire on a hilltop but that would probably not cut the mustard now. The fact is that clearly either there is no deity or he is simply playing hard to get. Worse than that he seems to be laying down so much evidence that he does not exist (or at least does not exist in the sense of the biblical god) that it would make it extremely unlikely that anyone with any sense of curiosity could believe that he does exist.

    In fact one has to wonder why such a deity would go to the trouble of faking the fossil record, setting up species that appear to have evolved, creating a planet that is not flat after all, and appears billions of years older than the 5000 or so years stated in his own scriptures. Why do all this and then appear to man (allegedly) and then fall silent.

    Well clearly, as an atheist, I suspect I know the answer. What answers a Christian would give you I cannot be certain, but I can be certain that the answer would be man made because apparently God isn’t taking questions.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.