Honestly, like most scientific people, I'm always willing to change my beliefs in the face of genuine evidence. I'm opening the floor to any and all who can offer up reasonable, TESTABLE, evidence for the existence of a god/supreme being/creator. Please refrain from anecdotes (ie. "my mother, father, sister, saw him"), illogical reasoning (ie. because something complex exists, it had to have been created), personal opinions (ie. because "I" believe... think... feel, etc) and coincidence (ie. a bunch of people prayed and he miraculously got better.)
The evidence must be testable, repeatable, and logical. Please no "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" thinking, and absolutely do not post scripture, as it will be ignored! (The Bible %26amp; other religious books ARE NOT evidence, since there is no way to investigate the authors' research.)
Consider this, your answers, if valid, could potentially change an entire segment of the populations thinking. Good luck!
I am an atheist. Can any of you theists change my mind with logical arguments (ie no quoting scripture)?microsoft frontpage
Your request is far too intellegent to get a good answer here. Happy searching, fellow questioner of the universe. :)
I am an atheist. Can any of you theists change my mind with logical arguments (ie no quoting scripture)?windows vista home premium internet explorerGod is real! Report It
Convince me that their is no God and I don't have to go into all that stuff you went into. Boy your hand must of got tired.lol I don't think you can do it. Not you or your fellow kindred spirits. Report It
Faith can not be proven scientifically.
So the very simple question to your answer is:
No. Report It
Quality question... Report It
Another atheist- not lkg to change.Stopped believing at 8 yrs bc it just didn't make any sense. Following a idea/law/leader blindly- w/o questioning seems insane to me, goes against rational person's sense of reason. Wish I had more space -darn!! Report It
can you emphatically say that you are the supreme scientist to accept/acnowledge the explanations? Report It
I could say (emphatically) that the only scientist I need to convince of anything is myself, but since my question is a reasonable one, chances are that a good answer would convince others. Report It
I knew you were going to say that. How can I change the belief of a person who is only looking for proof. To believe in God you don't need proof, you need faith. Report It
No proof that you find about the existence of God is ever going to be good enough for you, and you will never believe in him with that mentality. Don't waste people's time. Report It
Candykills,
If you truly felt that way, you wouldn't be wasting YOUR OWN time responding to me. Human beings question blind faith because they ARE INTELLIGENT, and most intelligent beings prefer to know they're not living a lie. Report It
Strange that you would commend an answer that does not purport to answer your question. Are you doing behavioural studies here or really seeking answers??? Report It
Best question ever!
The arguments speak for themselves. Report It
Duck Phup's answer may just sum up every other Go? argument here. Report It
To each his own.
I do not need to debate my beliefs.
im athiest too :) dont worry its okay!
Nah, don't think so, so why bother? You believe what you want to believe; I'll believe what I want to believe. You be respectful and I'll be respectful. And we're both happy except when the evangelicals bother both of us.
Faith isn't based on empirical evidence. If it were, it would be science.
Creation: 鈥榳here鈥檚 the proof?鈥?/p>
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you 鈥榣eave the Bible out of it鈥? they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
by Ken Ham
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
鈥業鈥檝e been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don鈥檛 believe the Bible and aren鈥檛 interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there鈥檚 a God who created, and then they鈥檒l listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they鈥檒l start to listen to me?鈥?/p>
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence鈥攖he same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars鈥攖he facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present鈥攁nd the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren鈥檛 there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 鈥榯ime machine鈥? They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That鈥檚 why the argument often turns into something like:
鈥楥an鈥檛 you see what I鈥檓 talking about?鈥?/p>
鈥楴o, I can鈥檛. Don鈥檛 you see how wrong you are?鈥?/p>
鈥楴o, I鈥檓 not wrong. It鈥檚 obvious that I鈥檓 right.鈥?/p>
鈥楴o, it鈥檚 not obvious.鈥?And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It鈥檚 not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses鈥攚hich means to change one鈥檚 presuppositions.
I鈥檝e found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist鈥檚 glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can鈥檛 put on the Christian鈥檚 glasses鈥攗nless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 鈥榚vidence鈥? you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 鈥榦n the facts鈥? But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 鈥榮tronger facts鈥?
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is鈥攁 different interpretation based on differing presuppositions鈥攊.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 鈥榝acts鈥?for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 鈥榃ell sir, you need to try again.鈥?/p>
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher鈥檚 basic assumptions. Then it wasn鈥檛 the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn鈥檛 accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
鈥楩acts鈥?are neutral. However, there are no such things as 鈥榖rute facts鈥? all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians鈥?presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions 鈥?see Naturalism, logic and reality.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: 鈥楾he fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom鈥?(Psalm 111:10); 鈥楾he fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge鈥?(Proverbs 1:7). 鈥楤ut the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned鈥?(1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: 鈥楾he one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters鈥?(Matthew 12:30); 鈥楢nd this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil鈥?(John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible鈥檚 account of the universe鈥檚 history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God鈥檚 Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4鈥? says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: 鈥楩or the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.鈥?/p>
Also, Isaiah 55:11: 鈥楽o shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.鈥?/p>
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God鈥檚 Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application
When someone tells me they want 鈥榩roof鈥?or 鈥榚vidence鈥? not the Bible, my response is as follows:
鈥榊ou might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I鈥檓 going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.鈥?/p>
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I鈥檝e explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
鈥楴ow let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.鈥?
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it鈥檚 no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, 鈥榃ell, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don鈥檛 believe in God.鈥?I answered him, 鈥榃ell, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don鈥檛 know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don鈥檛 know if you鈥檙e making correct statements or even whether you鈥檙e asking me the right questions.鈥?/p>
The young man looked at me and blurted out, 鈥榃hat was that book you recommended?鈥?He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations 鈥攕uch 鈥榬easoning鈥?destroys the very basis for reason.
On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, 鈥楢ctually, I鈥檓 an atheist. Because I don鈥檛 believe in God, I don鈥檛 believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can鈥檛 even be sure of reality.鈥?I responded, 鈥楾hen how do you know you鈥檙e really here making this statement?鈥?鈥楪ood point,鈥?he replied. 鈥榃hat point?鈥?I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, 鈥楳aybe I should go home.鈥?I stated, 鈥楳aybe it won鈥檛 be there.鈥?鈥楪ood point,鈥?the man said. 鈥榃hat point?鈥?I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Polonium halos are the undisputed evidence since the evidence was published in Science magazine in 1968.
Check this website for details.
http://www.halos.com/
Also, there are a few other sites for other evidence:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index....
http://www.grisda.org/
Excellent, excellent point! I do not believe one person will be able to give you credible evidence, but I look foward to reading the responses you get.
Okay.
Why do you exist?
I don't mean you the organism, I mean you the subjective experience. Why is there a perception of anything at all? Why isn't the entire universe a blind, unfeeling clockwork? Why is there an experience of the present moment?
It's not based on logic... it's based on faith... That's why they call it FAITH... duh
Like the first person said there is no reason to debate. If I believe that something is true then there is no reason to argue about it. I just hope you change. This feels like a game and I don't like playing with stuff like this.
I would be willing to discuss this with you if you like, but not on the great format that is Yahoo Answers.
I am not interested in arguing, however, only sharing opinions and beliefs. I am also very science minded.
I am not sure if this is the 'proof' you are interested in, but I have had a prayer answered. Not in the 'poof' and it's magically fixed. It took a long time and a lot of prayer, but eventually it happened. It was so subtle, I didn't realize it at first either.
I can also share with you the 'proofs' (that I can remember) from my days at Catholic School. Not that most of us students understood them either........
I use to believe in god and religion; but then I woke up and realized that reason made more sense than belief.
Continue being an Atheist, there is nothing wrong with that despite what some close minded people think
I think you should just believe in a loving and caring God that also created a firey hell for unbelievers to burn in forever if they reject Him.
Also, you're not allowed to ask who created "God", and question the fact that if "God" knew where we would all end up, why did He bother to create us, test us, judge us, and send us on our way anyway.. ?
you already have your own religion...it is your own inflated ego and sense of intellectual superiority...is an 'entire segment of the population' eagerly awaiting the results of your scientific inquiry? sweet mother of pearl, man, take a deep breath and GET OVER YOURSELF!!!!
I would give you logical argument, but I don't proselytize. All my religion is, is taking all things in nature and referring to it as part of God. That's it. I believe in the big bang, I believe in evolution, I believe dinosaurs existed, and I believe humans created religion, and not the other way around. Blessed be.
You want something from others (answers), yet you TELL them HOW to answer your question.
You want to control the answers you get... which means that others can't tell you the truths that they know.
Completely unreasonable to me - and evidently, you really don't want to know anything different.
It is not my job or desire to change your mind. That task belongs to the Holy Spirit. My job is to tell you what I know to be true, and, since that is based on Holy Scripture, and you don't want to hear it, I have nothing to say.
The rest is between you and God.
See ya!
Hey I posted something earlier ago about something that might interest you but read it with an open mind. My intentions are to let people know that scientific evidences are limited and that they can't prove that a Jesus existed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Oh forget it I am going to post it anyway. This a mix of my own opinions and notes written from a certain book I have.
If you want to believe or not that's your problem but don't get angry at me or feel offended.
Why not everything can be proved scientifically?
Many people think that if something can't be proved scientifically then is completely false and doesn't exist. But this is a myth. The Scientific method is not the only way to prove the validity of something. It everything was like this then you can't prove that Abraham Lincoln was the president of the U.S because you can't repeat this event that belongs to the past. Also you can't prove scientifically that you had a test last Wednesday at AM, because you can't repeat it again in a controlled manner where you can register observations and data. Once it happens it is history. Anything that can't be proved scientifically can be proved by the historical method or the evidential method, which includes oral testimonies, physical testimonies. This method is used in the courts of the whole world to prove evidence and is the only one that is applied in historical events. The way that was proved that The scientific method is limited and you can't proved the events mentioned before.
You can't prove that Napoleon was defeated in Waterloo. The bubonic pest that killed millions of people in XVII century in London, also that Jesus resuscitated from the death because you can't repeat these events in a controlled environment like the scientific method.
A history event like this can be proved with the evidential method, and there is enough evidence that Jesus came here for a a mission
In other words science isn't very reliable to probe a historical events such as the crucifixion or other stories in the Bible, and these kinds of events need another special way to be proved which is the historical method, and we have enough evidence to prove that Jesus was sent by God, like the Bible which is an obvious one. There were many witnesses who saw Jesus and wrote their experiences . The Bible was proved that is was real, and these men really existed. There is also archaeological evidence and places that prove that Jesus existed.
If you want to prove by yourself that God existed and Jesus, you need to do some serious research about the history and arqueology of those times, and you will realize that it was not fiction it was true and part of our history. You have to study a little bit of everything. Theology,History,Arqueology anything except science Lil.
TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, aka PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known Atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, aka ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to die.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists 鈥?it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys 鈥?you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.
PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
(1) God exists, you bastards!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
I have no idea if I could change your mind, but there are plenty of reasons why a rational, philosophical theism is a more satisfying account of the data of human experience than atheism. I cite three texts below. If you're serious about your proposition, read one of them. If you don't want to buy it, you can get it through your local public library (interlibrary loan).
I am an atheist. Can any of you theists change my mind with logical arguments (ie no quoting scripture)?
In a word, no....we can't. No one's words have the power to change your mind except the words of God himself. Anyone who tries is wasting his time.
God IS an alien: Ironically, god evolved and THEN created mankind. See, the fact than anything exists is proof that nothing has ever been the state of existence, for it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing (remember, nothing means no space, dimension, or possibilty). From this we can posit that something has always existed. That brings us to the usual crossroads in this debate: either god has always existed (and created the universe) or the universe has always existed (independent of a creator). In either case, God is a certainty. Let me explain:
If you argue that the universe has always existed, you must also argue that the universe is infinite, because at no point in the physical universe can something and nothing co-exist (i.e., if the only thing that exists is a basketball, what's all around the basketball? Nothing? Infinite, dimensionless nothing containing a finite something?? Impossible.)
If the universe is infinite and eternal (space and time are one, remember) then presumably it has been doing its thing (whatever it is doing now) for an infinite span of time. now, look what the universe has done in the last 15 billion years? It created you. The universe is pretty predictable and deterministic, so if it created life once, in an infinite span of time how many times did it create life? Did all of those life forms die out, or did some of them evolve way beyond the stage we are at and figure out how to live forever? Maybe we had a race of super scientists that learned, over the span of a trillion years (thats nothing in an infinite span of time, mind you) complete mastery over the universe.
God as a super alien? Not so far fetched is it - using your own precious concept of evolution! It really wouldn't even change our definition of God because in a universe without beginning or end how can one say that the creation of this super alien scientists did not happen an infinity ago?
Just keep two things in mind, if you remember nothing else: the universe is inifinite and infinity is the sum of all possibility. (in other words, in an infinite span of time, all possibilities WILL be realized, including god). So, where are we now on that infinite timeline? Towards the beginning or towards the end? (What that means, basically, is that in an infinite universe, everything that can happen HAS happened.)
Mwa ha ha ha! Bow down to your space brothers! Mwa ha ha...
Let's put it this way. I am a Christian and you aren't. I believe that when I die I will go to Heaven to be with Jesus. You don't believe in God so I know you will go to hell. The point is if I am wrong and there is no God I have nothing to worry about. But if I am right. you do.
Hyzakt,
You were doing Great, why did you have to go and quote the bible? I as an aethiest was actually enjoying your argument up until then.
Without quoting scripture, I would like to start by saying that the Bible has been proven to be an accurate account of historical events. Historians agree that Jesus did actually walk the earth. So, if the Bible is an accurate, then those who wrote it would have no reason to lie. I will admit that there are some parts of the Bible that can't be used as historical evidence, but the majority of it can be. So if the authors didn't lie, then the events actually occured, did they not? If these events occured, and the authors did not lie, then they actually happened, and God does exist.
Please check out the link below and respond, I am willing to try to explain further.
I think you are for real and I first beg you to not be intimidated abut the bible, because that is why you say dont quote scripture... because I imagine since your not a Christian you don't know scripture and therefore you can't debate scripture with anyone. Strangely most intellects don't believe in God but they fear him just the same... I'd rather live my life as if God exists and die to find he did not, than to live my life as if he did not and die to find he does. If we come from apes, where do apes come from? Out of all of the scientist and all of the money in the world no one has been able to create life in the way that scientist believe life began. Even cloning has only been able to be accomplished from life... taking what already is and duplicating it... in a lab from dna of what already is... If there is no God and life can just happen don't clone... create! That's all i have to say about Science.
The scientific evidence is right where you are, in the room that you are sitting in. Someone designed and made each and every item in that room. And someone designed and made this Yahoo Answers website. Someone designed and made the toilet paper that wipes your nose (and the other.....). EVERYTHING YOU SEE WAS DESIGNED AND MADE. EVERYTHING. So behind all of the trillions of products on this planet, are designers and manufacturers. So it is with everything in nature. The universe, the earth, the exotic wildlife, the picturesque landscapes were all designed and manufactured. The wooden chair you've sat upon was not a result of happenstance. Neither was the tree from which it's material came.
P.S. You wanted something that was testable. So commit to track down both the designer and the maufacturer of every item in the room where you are sitting. With patience and hard work, you would probably be at a 90% or better success rate. Now do the same for any flower, tree, shrub, butterfly, eagle or lion. Or planet. Or galaxy. With patience and hard work, but most of all DETERMINATION, you will eventually track down that designer and manufacturer as well. But you don't have to take MY word for it!
Hi there....
Ok, I`ve got your point. Actually I`m a scientist to. Especially in the gene scientist. At the first time, I don`t belief in God like u did. But u know what ??? There are a lot of think that human couldn`t think about. Even tough they cold become crazy because over-think and over-loaded the mind.
Can the scientist think the real meaning of the life ???
Yes... in their opinion, because of all organ in our body do them job correctly. But ??? Have u see that the man who lost his heart-beat for 12 hour could totally healty ??? Out of our think right ??? And also, could the scientist sentences where is the soul located ??? No right ???
I`ve make a conclusion that the scientist have only learned about the real-thing.They can not beliefe in the un-real one, beacuse there is no evidence. Actually u r not wrong, but, please learned to receive un-real thing. How about this universe ??? How made it ???Did the universe form coincidentally ??? U know what ??? 1 mm of error may disturbed the orbital of the planetand may cause the armageddon. Someone arrange it.
U can not be so naive, otherwise u can not received the truth. Please belief in God. I`m a mulim and I have found the answer that I have been asking for a long time.
-Belief in your heart-
al_breaker2005@yahoo.com
I'm no religious nut, but a little concerned about people with your attitude.
You have no scientific evidence that there is no God, yet you don't challenge your own belief with the same criteria as you challenge theirs. That tells me that your not looking to be convinced, but are looking to convince. In that sense, you're no better than the evangalists that you're trying to pick a fight with.
The only true battle, if you need to fight any, is protecting your rights as an atheist in the politcal spectrum. True atheists don't concern themselves with conversions of others, or who's ulitmately right. By definition, the "salvation" of another person doesn't matter to you, so there's no need to find a chink in their armor.
It is sad that you can have faith in so many things that you don't understand. You use faith everyday, but won't try it with God.
You don't want an argument from design, or creation. I mean, isn't it logical that everything must have come from something. We call that something, someone, and that someone God. We don't attempt to prove He does exist. We accept God by faith. He is known through our personal experiences as well as everything else.
You will find it impossible to prove that He does not exist.
Yet, so you won't just dimiss this answer and think that you proved something, or that Christians are weak, and their religion is not valid, and you said you were open to try.......
Try just talking to Him, honestly and objectively. Take some time and find an apologist and take a few months out of your life to prove to yourself by having Christianity fail for you before you totally dismiss it. What do you have to lose?
