It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What’s your Best EVIDENCE ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ God? Intellectual debate, please…

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


rhino?

You out there?

ru hiding from OT?

What?



OK, I'll take that as an IGNORE...

Man, I was wishing for some dialog...oh well..?

OT

PS: Where was the 2nd line?




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

I have no idea what you're going on about..



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by pmexplorer
I cannot get my head around (and I don't think humans are capable of)
that no matter what god you believe in, or what belief theory you have in relation to the universe and mankind, the final question can always be ''but who or what made that? Even if you believe in Jesus Christ and God Almighty,
where did he call home?

If this is the universe:

_ UNIVERSE___

if it began by a single atom or particle or proton or whatever scientists claim
where did that little spark originate and who created it?

How could something come out of nothing?

It really does hurt the brain to delve that deep.



your question is TIME-BOUND...

slow down and think about it...

HE is not...

[edit on 30-11-2009 by OldThinker]


Sorry mate, can you elaborate on the above? I don't understand
what you mean by your answer.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The biggest single argument against "God" is that nobody can even define it/Him/Her/whatever without the definition itself becoming paradoxical and meaningless.

For instance, it's just not possible for something to be both infinite and all-encompassing, yet still have a need to create. It can't be everything, yet still lacking.

And until somebody comes up with a functional definition of "God," any kind of debate is completely pointless.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hello OT

I set here reading people debating science and science theory as a basis for saying there is no God. Yet I hear the science community use words such as cold and darkness.

This very much puzzles me that we should trust them when they say there is no God or give us their beliefs on mankind and creation. Cold can not be proven. The word they should use is lack of heat, less heat or something similar to that. Since heat is measured to zero point which is a balmy 458 degrees below zero when they say cold they are making something up that does not exist. You can not measure cold because it has no energy. Or we could go lower than zero point. Maybe we should be more correct and say this winter my we sure have a lack of heat out here when its 20 below zero. Cold is not really the opposite of hot as we are taught. Yet we believe it exists.

The same applies to the word darkness. Darkness is just the word for absence of light. Such as the word evil is the absence of good.

For some reason human nature associates darkness, evil, satan and sometimes even cold as going hand in hand. Things that can't be proven by science,

We associate good, warmth, light and some of us God in a group also. Notice how science has been able to prove the existence of most of the things in that group.

We believe the earth is not hollow because science says it is not. Again this is only theory but thats not the topic of debate here. What it does show us is that science is a lot of guess work also. Guess work they expect us to believe because that is what they believe. Yet many times science has shall we say not been quite right.

In doing an experiment or coming to a conculsion a scientist is to use their 5 basic senses oberservation is also a big part of that. They would also put their own personal feelings aside so as not make the results biased and wrong.

Each person has to conduct their own experiment to know if there is a God. They have to ask theirselves can they feel him, see him, hear him, smell him or taste him?

If you have the right tools in your science kit God gave you, there will be no doubt you will be able to answer yes to some of those questions. Even if your mind is made up before you try the experiment God has a way of letting you know he is.

Yes God did create Satan so yes he even admits he created evil. But then what is evil other than the absence of God?

For those of you talking about the young earth try this site.

www.icr.org

A lot of stuff main stream science wants to shelve you'll find in their newletter they'll send you for free.

By the way my own science experiment yes I found out he really exists and through observation of others I see where they have found he exist also and also see the ones that haven't gotten the same results for some reason.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Does God exist.

In the beginning was God and the WORD was with GOD.

Then GOD SPOKE (BREATH=SPIRIT)
and said let there be light. (the big bang)
and then GOD breathed his spirit over the face of the earth (created the birds, plants and animals) Breath=life=animating force=spirit

Then GOD formed a man out of clay and breathed his spirit into him.

Gods word is the BIBLE.

The bible is inspired ( has the spirit within it)

So to those who have ears let them hear.

Spirit is from GOD
Flesh is of the earth

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

The truth is a standard of action that exists outside of humans.

Otherwise you blur the line between right and wrong, and each person gets to set their own standard or rules of conduct.

Expire= spirit leaves we die
inspire=full of the spirit
aspire=create a positive vision of the future
despire=spirit is depressed
transpire=to move from here to there using spirit
conspire=to share the same spirit/breath as in plot. not necessary to be bad. conspirt to have a surprise birthday party.


we must use this spirit which combines with food to produce thought activity.
We must use this spirit for good, positive fruitful purposes, otherwise we are yielding to th desires and weaknesses of the flesh.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by fmcanarney]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
If there were no God there would be no greater force. If there were no greater force there would be no fear. And if there were no fear there would be no limits.

This Theology can be applied, to any entity, protecting similiar personal interests. In example - Government.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Paradox.]



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
  • What’s your Best EVIDENCE ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ God? Intellectual debate, please…


Since atheists are the ones insisting that believers in God must produce evidence for God, then they atheists should be the ones to expound on what is evidence and how it should be used to substantiate the existence or non-existence of something, like for example, God.

Why they atheists?

Because the persons who insist on a requirement must be the ones to expound on it.

So that people can fulfill the requirement they insist on, by following faithfully the exposition they insist on.

Otherwise atheists will always maintain that Christians do not know what is evidence and how to employ evidence -- if they atheists are not the ones who expound on evidence and the method of using it.

Now, on the part of theists like Christians, their business is to give the fundamental concept of God for Christians in relation to the universe.

  • In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Gen 1:1.
  • I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1.


So, the fundamental concept of God for Christians in relation to the universe is that God is the:


  • Maker of everything that is not God Himself.


And Christians can also keep to the understanding of the universe as the one where man resides in, namely, the observable Big Bang universe.

If atheists want to bring in other universes whatsoever, then they can keep their gods in those universes whatsoever.


So, atheists here, give your exposition briefly, simply, clearly, but adequately on what is evidence, and how to use evidence to substantiate the existence or non-existence of something, for example, God.


Pachomius



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Pachomius
 


OP , you arn't going to get what you are looking for , but here are a few facts.

Unfortunately, extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus has been published only in the scientific journals and never made it to the popular press. These studies examined one of the Egyptian plagues (before the Exodus) and demise of Jericho (after the Exodus). Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature,1 that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (" 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating). This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old.

What is even more interesting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which has been dated to 1628 B.C.2 This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. Check out Exodus 10:


Then the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt." So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22)

Even the researchers commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking."3

---------------------------

Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4


-------------------

Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

-----------------------------------------------

Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.


---------------------------------------

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:
•"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."6
•"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."7
•"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."8


-------------------------------------------

heistic solution - measurable design

On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.11



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
For the age in which it was written, the Bible makes some rather surprising claims regarding the nature of the universe and how it was created. For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.

God created time and was acting before time began: ◦In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
◦No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)
◦This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)
◦The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

---------

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time.
Penrose, R. 1966. An analysis of the structure of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. 1966. Singularities and the Geometry of space-time. Adams Prize Essay, Cambridge University.
Hawking, S.W. and G.F.R. Ellis. 1968. The cosmic black-body radiation and the existence of singularities in our universe. Astrophysical Journal 152: 25-36.
Hawking, S.W. and R. Penrose. 1970. The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: 529-548

----------

Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model

The following verses suggest that God created the universe through an expanding universe - what science has called the Big Bang. In many cases the Hebrew text indicates present tense - a process still continuing. •Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)
•Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalm 104:2)
•It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)
•Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)
•Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24)
•"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)
•"Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together." (Isaiah 48:13)
•That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)
•It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
•It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
•The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

----------------------

The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

------------------------

In addition, the Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended)long before science made that determination. The Bible also states that the universe is subject to decay and will wear out.

Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. (Genesis 2:3-4)

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. (Psalm 102:25-27)
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Romans 8:21)

The existence of the second law of thermodynamics, coupled with recent discoveries indicating that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, with an insufficient amount of matter to stop that contraction, guarantees that the Bible is correct on this claim, also.

--------------------------------

Besides these stunning revelations about the nature of the universe, the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight, the existence of valleys and vents on the bottom of the sea, ocean currents.These are remarkable claims that could not have been directly observed by a bunch on nomadic sheep herders. Where did this information come from?

."When He imparted weight to the wind, And meted out the waters by measure" (Job 28:25)
.The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils. (2 Samuel 22:16)
."Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? (Job 38:16)
First discovered in the 1970's. See Exploring the deep ocean floor: Hot springs and strange creatures
.... and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. (Psalm 8:8)
.Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
.Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. (Ecclesiastes 1:6)




edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Massive !


Although God didn't intentionally leave us any evidence for his existence. The Bible explains why he didn't.
This fact alone makes asking for evidence of God illogical. Make that objective evidence

edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
God is no small feat



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


I suppose I would go with light. If someone were to hold a gun to my head. I would say light is the best evidence of God..
edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium
(Part 2)
Just so ya know, Christianity even has an answer for the age old question of which came first ..the chicken or the egg.

(Genesis 1:21)

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I have always just wanted to point that out and never got to. LOL. The `winged fowl`
or chicken....came first.



So, the insoluble question which comes first, the chicken or the egg, follow the lead of the Bible, it's the chicken.

That is also what any engineer will do, first make the chicken with eggs already inside, which chicken will lay them eggs and hatch them as at the same time protecting them while hatching them.

If an engineer contrives first the egg, how is it going to survive without a chicken to protect it?

And how is it going to get hatched?

See, the Lord is pretty smart, He made the chicken first with eggs already inside, what a terrific package, only the Lord could and did do that.

All praise to the Lord!

Yes, that is the evidence of God's ingenuity.

Making the chicken first with eggs already inside, what a terrific way of packaging!

If He made the eggs first, He would have to provide them with protection and a mode of getting hatched, silly of Him.

All praise to the Lord Who is full of ingenuity.

That is what I would call hitting two birds with one stone.

In reality, it is chicken and egg came originally together, with of course by God's intelligent design the eggs inside the chicken.

But to our sight, we see the chicken first which later laid the eggs.

So, still God can be said to have presented first the chicken which later laid the eggs.


Pachomius



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
There is no evidence for the existence of any god and an idea cannot be proven to not exist. It's a circular debate that will never end.


An idea can be proven to have a corresponding thing outside the idea (if such a thing does exist outside the idea), if the searcher can inspect every nook and cranny of the whole space where all reality is to be present, for example, the Big Bang universe.

But even without having to search the thing in the whole space of the universe, it is possible to come to the evidence of God's existence in the universe, like this:

God for Christians is the maker of everything that is not God Himself, since the Big Bang universe has a beginning -- it did not make itself, it and everything in it was made by something else, wherefore everything is a piece of evidence for the existence of God Who is the maker of everything that is not Himself.

Everything like the nose in our face is a piece of evidence for the existence of God Who is fundamentally in concept for Christians the maker of everything that is not God Himself.

And God the maker of the universe is all everywhere in every nook and cranny of the universe and also outside, embracing it from the outside and permeating it from the inside.


Pachomius



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ishmaael
I'd like to contribute to the purely logical side of this...

let's talk about infallibility.
in·fal·li·ble (n-fl-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.

The Christian/Judeo/Muslim God is said to be infallible. How can we prove this to be false? Well, it's actually quite simple, and without any belief shattering piece of "evidence."

Ask this question to any person who believes in the infallibility of God: Can God create a stone so massive that he/she cannot lift?

This poses a paradox; if God CAN create the stone, than he CANNOT lift the stone, thus showing that God is NOT all powerful; if God CANNOT create the stone, than again God has failed.

This argument uses simple logic to assert that the very idea of an unerring, perfect, always correct, all-powerful being is a logic fallacy, thus impossible.

Thoughts?



You are comparing God to man, and deceptively switching God from an omnipotent being to man which is a limited being.

Man can put together something so big that he cannot carry it, for example, rolling a snowball bigger and bigger that it becomes too heavy for him to carry, because there is a limit to his capacity to carry weight.

That speaks the limitation of man to carry a weight which he adds to cumulatively so that the end resulting weight is too heavy for his limited capacity to carry.


Now read and think really intelligently and honestly:

You ask:

  • "Can God create a stone so massive that he/she cannot lift?"


You mean can God be like a man that can add to the weight of a stone more and more until He cannot carry it anymore like a mnn, because He has reached the limit of his capacity like a man?

No, God is not like a man, period.

In your question there is a hidden redefinition of God so that God is switched from the Creator of everything that is not God Himself to the definition of a man which is a limited being.

The fact is that God can carry however heavy a stone He can create, period.



Pachomius



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM
reply to post by OldThinker
 


See, www.abovetopsecret.com...

[...]

If God were perfect, there would be no disharmony and pain and suffering would be a thing of the past and everyone could enjoy gumdrop rainbows and candycane forests.

[...]




You have to be God to know what is His perfection all about and how what He does is in accordance with His perfection.

It is possible for man to judge man in regard to man's perfection in regard to wisdom and goodness and justice, because man knows man, namely, that man is imperfect.

But when you as a man who cannot see except according to the limitation of your mind seeks to judge and condemn God, that is very unjust from your part and illogical.

We as limited beings know what is perfection also as limited perfection.

So, from our limited knowledge of perfection we can judge fellowmen on the basis of this limited knowledge of perfection, to draw a conclusion on such a basis that a fellow man has acted not in accordance with even the limited knowledge of perfection with man.

If you use the same limited yardstick to judge God's action, then it just goes to show that you are unfairly imposing your limited knowledge of perfection so as to demand that God act also according to your limitation,

That is really arrogant and illogical.


Pachomius



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
From the current post , i take it no one read my facts that are literally ... facts mostly. Or Factual Opinion.

If any Atheist has a question , ask. I have an Answer , you may not like it , but i can find an Answer

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

There are so many gods and goddesses to choose from that it seems petty (and a little arrogant) to support just one particular team.

When looked at objectively, 'Sorbek the Egyptian Crocodile God' has got exactly as much validity,plausibility and credibility as allah (or any other god from the abrahamic mythologies) so whats the point?

Odin has got to be one my favourites (with his two pet crows Memory and Knowledge) but ask yourself why you don't just unquestioningly believe in him and you'll have the beginning of the answer as to why people don't just mindlessly subscribe to your opinions.

[...]




To be relevant to current contemporary history, it is logical to focus on the God of Christians, Muslims, and also Jews the believers that is.


Pachomius
edit on 27-6-2011 by Pachomius because: Wrong reference to post #1.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
There is no evidence of a god therefore I dont believe in one.




A great book to read about this subject is Lee Strobel's "The case for a creator". It covers almost all the topics and evidence pointing to the existence of a creator. And if anyone is wondering what "solid evidence" there is, DNA is that evidence. Even in the most primitive single celled organisms, the sheer amount of information held and processed in DNA is just incredible- too incredible to be the product of chance.


Er Monts, I'm not quite sure how you can recommend anything Strobel- the guys a goose.
Scientific evidence...where?
Facts, hardly.
Cherry picked opinions to suit agenda.
The book is a joke.

edit to add: yep, I've read it. I'm selling it on FB for $1 if you want it. lol.
edit on 27-6-2011 by lifecitizen because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join