Atheism: Does God Exist?

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know
See results without voting

There are really only two possibilities, either God exists or he doesn't...Quite simple really. Personally, I think that all great truths are really very simple but that's another story. Either God exists or he doesn't, both conclusions require faith. The question is which one requires reasonable faith and which one requires blind faith?


I will give you the answer, the answer is that yes God exists. The reason I can give you the answer is because I exist. I exist along with the whole of creation and that fact alone gives us enough evidence to say with certainty that God exists.

Does something come from nothing?

The only alternative to God existing, is that something was created out of nothing. Atheism is the belief that there is no God and that belief requires the additional belief that something, i.e. everything we see, came from nothing. That something could be the rudimentary elements that made up the Big Bang or it could be the entire universe lock, stock and barrel, take your pick, it really doesn't matter. The fact is if you don't believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, if you are an atheist, then you are forced to conclude that something just popped into being out of nothing, an illogical, unreasonable conclusion.

What does the evidence reveal?

Let's look at the evidence. If there were a Creator one would assume and look for, order. If there was something that came out of nothing one would look for other instances of things just popping into being. Hmmm, what is it that we observe? We observe that there is order in the universe. If we didn't have order in the universe we would not be able to count on the seasons occurring every couple of months, the sun setting each night or even be able to perform an operation (counting on the knowledge of medical science to be consistent) or land a rocket on the moon. We can do all these things and more because there is order in the universe. What we don't see are things popping into existence and chaos. For everything there is a cause and an effect and there is order. Even in catastrophes we find order. For example, when a tornado occurs it happens in the same general area; there is wind and we can even predict when they will occur with increasing accuracy. Tornado's don't have fire in them, they don't include meteors, they have certain characteristics that have been observed and repeated. The same goes for earthquakes. We know, through observation, that earthquakes occur on fault lines and scientists have even been able to predict how often and how large an earthquake might be. Even in catastrophes we find order.

Can We Prove the Existence of God?

Many atheists ask for proof of God's existence. However, it is impossible to prove that there is a God through the scientific method because the scientific method requires that something is verifiable, repeatable and observable. Just as it would be impossible to prove through the scientific method that Michelangelo existed. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. Just because something cannot be proven through the scientific method doesn't mean that it isn't true or doesn't exist. However, one can observe the effects of Michelangelo's existence or life and come to a reasonable conclusion that he did exist. The same is true of God. Is there a universe? Is there order in the universe? Yes. The reasonable conclusion is that God exists.

Furthermore, I would add that we all know that this is true and we prove this every day in our daily lives. Most people own cars. If you were to ask me what make and model the car I own is you would be offended if I told you it just popped into existence in my driveway one day. That would be an absurd response. And yet when it comes to creation many readily accept that response adding in a few billion years in a feeble attempt at making that position acceptable intellectually. The same goes for creation.

So, then where did God come from?

Some will ask where did God come from then? God is a cause, not an effect. The Bible teaches us that He always was and always will be, that He is the eternal Creator, the Alpha and the Omega, the great "I AM". He is outside of creation and therefore the cause of creation. If He were an effect we would still need a cause...are you following me here?

The Blind Faith of...Atheism!

Obviously, it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing since we have no evidence of this ever happening. The definition of blind faith is belief without true understanding, perception or discrimination. Atheism, the belief that there is no God, fits that definition perfectly since there is no evidence for the universe just popping into being. The Bible says that it is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God, I, wholeheartedly, concur!



More by this Author


Comments 287 comments

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 6 years ago from HubPages, FB

Absolutely great hub, Brie. Thanks.


JOE BARNETT profile image

JOE BARNETT 6 years ago

morning brie! there is enough order as you say to lead to the possibility of god. the heart beating,organisms of the body, watching a cut heal, vision etc. . . I believe in God but as you say it is a belief and nothing more.eventhough we see what we call order we are just layman in the weakest form of the word. the people that truly have been able to study and test this, as best as humanly possible (and they are searching just like us), say it looks like (based on the evidence) it was the big bang.

so then, what is one to believe? well if there is a God why does he remain so silent?why does he allow such atrocities to repeat themselves? what is the point of life? the best i can figure, thus far, is to reproduce and you are givin enough time to determine if you believe in god, but that is "my guess".it's how i have filled in the blanks with answers. interesting hub as always!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well, one idea at a time Joe, I may get around to the next step.

Thanks for writing Joe and Vladimir


blackreign2012 profile image

blackreign2012 6 years ago

Brie this is an excellent subject. I read it and was instantly glued. @joe my friend; The Creator just is.. always has been and always will be. Period. It's hard for most people to swallow that because we have been conditioned to believe that everything must be explained must be accounted for. That is aa narrow minded way of thinking. When I say that its not a dig at anyone who chooses not to believe but as a Beliver in The Creator I deal in truth. Life is about choices. That was HIS gift to us but it can also be a curse. As you can see by the state of the world today. The Creator provides blessings everyday big and small to get you by in this thing caled life. It all boils down to how you choose to live. Now if you are a suckie person, nasty and disrespectful that's what you will get out of your existance exactly that. If you have an honest and pure nature not meaning sinless but someone who lives life helping people, loving people etc. there are certain rewards that come with that. It all comes down to choice. The Creator is our Father the reason we exist and have existed all this time. And like a good parent should when your children reach a certain maturity you have to let go and let them make their own choices. Same thing just on a universal scale. Evil does exist and it does want you to turn away from The Creator Satan, lucifer, whatever you wanna call it.. That's his revenge against The Creator because he can't go hands up with HIM. He was created also. Just like with any parent it hurts when your child rebels against what's right but like I said before there comes a time when you have to let go and let your children make their own choices. The Creator can't interceed with some miracle everytime something bad happens. We would never grow. That's like carrying your child around til he/she turned twelve. You would cripple his/her development. We are Under this superstructure conditioning which dictates every situation must have a happy ending or some heroic storyline. Through suffering comes understanding and new beginings. For example; if someone dies in a car wreck and they were an organ donor and there is an 8 year old girl needing a lung. One family lost a family member (actually the vessel the soul lives on) but they saved a life now let's take it a step further and that 8 year old girl grows up to be a surgeon saving other lives. Everything comes full circle and that is life. We made the mistake of trying to remove The Creator from everything hence the chaos. If we all were truly living and putting to practice HIS teachings this world would not be THIS bad. People wanna call his name when they need him but refuse to live as they should. Then wanna blame him when things go wrong but no glory when he blesses you. The awesome thing about The Creator he even loves those who don't believe and still shoots blessings to them but most times they can't see it because their spiritual mind is in a haze...Good hub brie you will be getting alot of comments on this one I bet ~hugs~


JOE BARNETT profile image

JOE BARNETT 6 years ago

blackreign good morning! you opened a can of worms. i said and do believe in God based on life and that's my choice, because there has never been anything that has defintively cleared this up. you on the other hand discuss his teachings when thus far not one person has "ever" talked with him. so what teachings are you talking about? the delusional rantings of a starving and isolated man? or the 3 pages of undeciperable dead sea scrolls that were found in 1948. there are no teachings from god PERIOD! only from man. what you discuss are philosophies. some are altruistic, some are pleasure seekers. but interesting conversation!


"Quill" 6 years ago

Great Hub and I stand with Him...

Blessings


Enlydia Listener profile image

Enlydia Listener 6 years ago from trailer in the country

I like the visual of the tornado...no fire or meteors in a tornado...I also like the painting...one of my favorites.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Glad to hear, thanks for commenting Enlydia


SwiftlyClean profile image

SwiftlyClean 6 years ago from Texas

Brie Hoffman thanks for writing this hub.I'm standing 100% on GOd if he was to remove the Earth I would still stand 100% on GOD's existing.

With GOD'S Peace!

God Bless!

Sharon Smith


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks for the comments Sharon


SwiftlyClean profile image

SwiftlyClean 6 years ago from Texas

You are very Welcome.

Peace!


Judah's Daughter profile image

Judah's Daughter 6 years ago from Roseville, CA

I like the simplicity of your analysis in answering "the big question". Man was designed to have common sense/rational thinking (order), which goes out the door when they over-complicate things (confusion). I think about those who choose to lie for a living; it takes more energy and effort to consistently lie and explain the lies than it does to simply live in the truth, good or bad.

Consider a crime investigation. The investigator can tell if someone is lying or not by determining the cause and effect. If the alleged cause doesn't add up to the factual effect, the suspect is lying.

If Atheists admit there's a God, then they have accountability (which they don't want). That's the truth.

Rom 1:18-20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen Sister!


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

"If Atheists admit there's a God, then they have accountability (which they don't want). That's the truth."

Amen and amen...

Thanks Brie, good hub, I've never worried since I read the end of the book and found out that God wins!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Won't that be something, when it's all over and done with!


djbraman profile image

djbraman 6 years ago

DNA knowledge has blown Darwin out of the water. So science is trying to get us to accept that some big bang created life and the beauty our eyes behold of God's creation. Some fluke bang created a blueprint for the first molecule. I'm not even that smart but that's an obviously lie from the devil. Some scientists do concede to an intelligent design because they can't go with the Darwin theory that the fittest survive, but they still don't want to say that intelligent design is God the creator of the universe. Its so obvious that God is alive and in control of his creation but we still are forced to subject our children to this creation lie in our public schools. Lord help this nation take the blinders off.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Personally I don't believe in the Big Bang because it says that God laid the foundations of the earth. To me that speaks of a deliberate effect not an explosion. But it doesn't really matter to me if others do believe it because it's not the main topic of the discussion. The main topic is the Creator.

Thanks for writing


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 6 years ago from the Rocky Mountains

Brie,

I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does a Creator. And I don't believe in Atheism, because God said he put it within everyone to know the truth. Thus the word atheist for me one who rebels against God. Actually for one to truly be an atheist, they would be God, because they would know everything about everything - how else would one know there is no God?

For example... ask your atheist friends this:

Do you know everything there is to know in the universe?

No, of course not.

Ok, do you know half of everything there is know in the universe?

Well, no I don't believe so.

Ok, so how do you know that God doesn't exist in the half that you know nothing about?

And if you don't know... I think they call that agnostic...not atheist.

There are no atheists, just people who want to be thier own god. The problem they keep having is... they're not.

Great hub!

- Harlan


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

So true Harlan, thanks for commenting and have a great day.


thevoice profile image

thevoice 6 years ago from carthage ill

terrific great hub question God Jesus are holy human freedom of choice this why God freed all humanity thanks


p5ych9 6 years ago

wonder what kind of horror show did your loving god reign over again last night? somewhere, children died screaming, (or perhaps they linger on in pain). and that's just the tip of the iceberg, the horror show is repeated over and over relentlessly. watch out, you may be next!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Without free will, love is not possible. God would have us choose love but we have the choice to choose evil and we do choose evil instead many times. All things will be worked out in the end.


p5ych9 6 years ago

lame response brie, have a cup of coffee...


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You may think it's lame but it's true.


BDazzler profile image

BDazzler 6 years ago from Gulf Coast, USA

I actually think it's a perfect response. Love without choice is not love. Choice without consequence is not choice. Now, the coffee idea THAT I like, I think I'll go refill my cup now!


p5ych9 6 years ago

mmm, yeah, ok, so a child loving their parent, and vice versa, is a choice??? its a given, natural state! the feeling of true love is not a choice, its an overpowering condition we cannot control. (or have you never been?)

by the way, the vast majority of people barely make it through this life without being their own worst enemies based on their choices and the resulting consequences. haha, do you seriously think we can even comprehend the origins of our existince without a really dumbed downed answer such as a supreme being? how ignorant! how arrogant ! how simplistic! a little clue for you kiddo - i do know why we are the way we are: its this world we live in, a 2 choice world that has conditioned us to accept this or that answers. think about it - god/devil; night/day; on/off; man/woman; hot/cold; etc, etc, etc........ so, the very notion of third choice is a reach, hard to wrap your head around. be assured i won't be accepting the notion of a god answer "just because".


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I'm not giving you the God answer "just because" ...you have a whole universe that is the effect of God. If anything the non-God answer is "just because"!


p5ych9 6 years ago

atheism is in fact a 3rd option. the god/devil question is from the 2 choice world.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Something coming from nothing is not a reasonable option as I talked about in my article.


p5ych9 6 years ago

are you off your game today? perhaps we pick this discussion up another time? your responses are are umm, well, exactly stimulating (to be kind). have a nice life dear...


p5ych9 6 years ago

should have read "not exactly stimulating"


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Oh well, I don't live or die by what comments are posted here!


TonyAtHubPages profile image

TonyAtHubPages 6 years ago

Oh, look out!

Nothing just exploded right next to you!

Good point.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

"The fact is that if you don't believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, if you are an atheist, then you are forced to conclude that something just popped into being out of nothing, an illogical, unreasonable conclusion."

- I strongly beg to differ my friend. Did the universe really pop into existence out of nothing? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Only thing we really do know that exists with absolute certainty is nature itself. This does not prove God created it. We simply do not know what really happened. To use the word “God” to try and explain something unknown is called a "God of the Gap" fallacy. Lets just say that if I had answered every question I didn't know during my college exams with the word “God“, would have I had graduated with straight A’s? Of course not. Science is a very fascinating field. Science is about acquiring knowledge. There were many things in the past that we did not know or understand that we do today because of science. And there will be many more things in the future we will discover and understand, that we do not today, through science. Some things, we may never understand fully. I am ok with that. But I don’t think that makes it ok to fill those gaps in with the word “God”. It might be the easier thing to do, but that can be very dangerous. Give science a chance. There are many new emerging scientific theories that could possibly give rise to much more logical and fascinating explanations to why the universe exists today.

Also, think about this. What is "order"? Can it only come from an intelligent designer? What is another possible premise? Well, if order is found in nature everywhere we look, then why can't we just assume it exists “naturally“? Why the need for God? Why not skip the middle man? When asked about where did God come from you respond that the Bible says that God always was. But ask yourself this. What gives the Bible absolute authority of truth? Who ever said that the Bible is right? Was it God? And if so, where is God mentioned? Isn’t God mentioned in the Bible itself? This kind of thinking leads to a logical fallacy called circular logic. You cannot prove a conclusion if it is also found in the premise. You cannot prove God exists just because the Bible says so.

Anyway, very nice Hub. I am new here and will be posting a lot in the religion and philosophy sections. I will be looking forward to many enlightening and friendly debates and discussions.


micadeolu profile image

micadeolu 6 years ago from Celestial Church of Christ, +2347067550237.

Brie, this's a good job from you. You just wrote my mind on this topic. More power to your elbow.

Well my addition is for those who do not believe in the existence of God. That unbelief is the very evidence of the existence of God. You see, God is that very "thing" you do not understand and remains so mysterious and incomprehensible to you or if you like say 'darkened' is God. He knows that it will be difficult for us to comprehend Him that is why He created or sent the Christ (light) an embodiment of the sinless man Jesus son of Mary.

Another point is that science is too primitive and incompetent to measure or decipher who God is. Instead of racking our brain about what darkness is why don't we pick up the light of knowledge give to us and use it to do exploits and appreciate the unseen provider and give Him glory.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

To Micadeolu:

The argument of incomprehensibility is not a very strong one for theists. For one, it is a "scape goat" answer. It is an easy way to defend the existence of God without putting much thought into it. Second, if God is truly incomprehensible, then how can we comprehend that he even exists? Thirdly, even if we acknowledge God, how can we know anything about him if he is so incomprehensible? You just contradicted yourself by saying "He knows that it will be difficult for us to comprehend him.." How can you say, "He knows.." if humans cannot understand God or know God.

The argument of incomprehensibility, ironically enough, is a stronger argument for the atheist and agnostic. It is the theist that has always tried to say what God is or what God wants. It is the theist that has always tried to define God. It is the theist that as always tried to change the life of other people to try and fit Gods way. If mankind cannot understand God, then how can anyone say what God is or what God wants?

Also, how does Jesus provide an answer or response to Gods incomprehensibility? And if God is so incomprehensible, how can you say with absolute certainty that Jesus was sent to earth for that reason? If Jesus, of course, even existed at all.

One last point about science. How can you say science is too incompetent to measure or decipher who God is? What makes you much more competent? Or the Bible? Or any other human being or human written book? You say we should "pick up the light of knowledge". On the contrary, science is a tool used to gather knowledge. If anything, science has a much stronger potential to provide a much better explanation to the reason and purpose to why we exist. Lets try and understand what science is before we label it too primitive or incompetent to explain or measure anything at all.

Science is non-biased. It makes no initial conclusion. Science gathers facts, and evidence, then tries to make the best conclusion it can with the evidence gathered. The beauty about science is that if more evidence is gathered in the future that doesn't fit with its conclusion, science has no problem changing or adjusting that conclusion to fit all the data it has. Lets look at religion. Religion destroys that knowledge and quest for truth. It is biased in the sense that from the very beginning with out data, facts, evidence, already has a made conclusion. It will only look for evidence to support that initial conclusion and disregard everything else. Religion is not willing to change its conclusion. Religion forces its followers to simply accept its conclusion with blind faith. Think about it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

God is comprehensible because he makes himself known to whom he chooses.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Is God comprehensible or incomprehensible? You ask three different theists, you get ten different answers. Let me focus on this specific response and question, if I may, why does God only make himself known to whom he chooses? Is that a fair thing for an omni-benevolent God to do? Why are some so special, while others are not? Depending on what Christian faith you hold, if you believe God rewards (and or punishes) on belief, it doesn't seem very fair for God to make himself known to some and not reward those who don't believe in him when he doesn't make himself known to them.

The other issue with the argument that God only makes himself known to some is that it destroys any potential solid and empirical evidence for his existence. My point is, if God does exist, why does he not make himself known to all? Why just some? There have been many different Gods that have made themselves known to only a select few. Zeus, Kreshna, Allah. It is then up to the one single individual to spread the word of that one specific God. Why don't you believe in Allah? or Zeus? Why only the Christian God? Christianity is no different when it comes to the tactic that other religions use to spread their ideals. I must take your word that God exists because he has failed to prove his existence to me. What credentials do you or any other Christian has for a non-believer to accept the word as truth? Do you believe in the flying-spaghetti monster?

Here, check this out. It's a you tube video. It's about kissing Hank's ass. Tell me, would you kiss Hank's ass?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

God is comprehensible because he has made himself so to those who seek Him with a sincere heart. I don't believe in any other gods because there is no evidence for them and I have not met them. Please don't put links on my hub.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Hello freethinker22. While I must confess I haven't read the hub you responded to I feel the questions you pose are valid and deserve answers. You begin by asking about God's fairness in revealing Himself to some but not to others. Please indulge me for a moment. Imagine yourself as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. Your objective is to be loved by your creation. How do you approach the objects of your love without overwhelming them? Without causing allegience generated by fear (which would be a poor substitute for love)?

First, you might discover the only way to introduce yourself is through the magnificence of what you have created. Romans 1;20 says "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

If you consider the impossibility of life to exist without the perfection of factors that cause this to be a habitable environment and the odds of this preciseness happening randomly (i.e. our distance from the sun, the angle of our Earth's revolution on it's axis, the oval orbit, the make up of our atmosphere, etc. etc.) the odds of occurrence without intelligent design are infinitely against it. It would be the equivilent of having all the peices of a watch in millions, billions...trillions of bags, complete with every part necessary to construct a working model. Shaking each bag for an eternal number of years would not result in a single working model.

Why only the Christian God? All religions are based on the premise of what man has to do to make himself right with God. Christianity is the ongoing love affair God has with His creation. It alone speaks of a God that has taken the initiative upon Himself to bring man into right standing with Him. It is the story of a King that made Himself a peasant so as not to intimidate but to win the heart of the maidservant that captured His heart.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well put Fred.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

When I replied to free thinkers comment to your hub I did so after logging onto the site and viewing recent posts. His caught my attention. After posting my reply to him, I went to the religion and beliefs tab and the title of your hub caught my attention. I was suprised to find that this was the hub that free thinker replied to. While I can't offer proof that I paid no attention to the the title of the hub he replied to, I can honestly say I was suprised when the first hub I clicked on was the very one he replied to. Not a game changer for the unbeliever, but for me this is the second "coincidence" God sighting today. The first one happened in response to a question posed to me earlier on this site. I can say with absolute certainty that there is a God, He is very much engaged in the lives of men, He is love, and the evidence supports this conclusion!


The Momma profile image

The Momma 6 years ago

your words are perfect. thank you.


Micadeolu 6 years ago

Kudos to Fred Allen, what I feel is happening to freethinker22 is that he intuitively wish someone or something to convince him that God does not exist.

You see, wether we believe or not does not remove the fact that God exists. Put yourself before this time say 2,000 BC when there was no scientific equipments to confirm the existence of air. Despite that they know and believe its existence through its effects and activities.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

To Fred Allen..

You ask how I would approach objects of love without overwhelming them? Well, I can tell you what I would not do, if I were an all loving God. I would not threaten them with eternal and everlasting punishment of hell for not accepting me. Is if fair for a boyfriend in a relationship to shoot his ex-girlfriend's head off because she broke up with him? Is if fair to torture her because she didn't want to love him back? How is it fair for God to send anyone at all to hell just because they don't believe or accept him??

Secondly, you bring up the fine-tuning argument. Think about this. Are humans really the central purpose of nature? I would say that more than 99.999999999 percent of nature is non-habitable to human life. The universe is immense. We make up barely a tiny spec of this almost infinite universe. Out of billions of galaxies, stars, and planets, our planet is the only one hospitable to life. Lets look at planet earth. Over 75 percent of our own planet is inhospitable to human life. If really are the central purpose of nature, then why do we make up such a miniscule part of it. Not only is the majority of nature non hospitable for human life, but human life is outnumbered by other living organisms. Insects alone outnumber humans by the trillion. Often times insects maim life for man, and even feast his flesh. The cockroach has not only been around millions of years before humans, outlived the dinosaurs, it can also survive a nuclear explosion. Think about this, then. If there is a God, does God really care about human existence? Perhaps the one true God is the God of the cockroach.

Intelligent Design has been dis-proven both scientifically and philosophically. Look at how brutal nature is. What is the purpose for an intelligent designer to design a flying insect with a syringe attached to an appendage specifically designed to insert it into the flesh of other animals, and people, such as innocent babies, to suck their blood out. As if that isn't sick enough, this same insect is also equipped with a parasite called Malaria. Did you know that Malaria is the deadliest disease in the world? And who does it kill? Innocent babies and children. Every single day.

If you believe in an intelligent designer, you cannot ignore the malevolence that was also intelligently designed by this designer. This is something that a lot of theists will not do.

Lastly, even if you can prove that there is an Intelligent Designer, there is very little proof to offer that it is a single theistic God. There is even less evidence to connect the designer to the Christian God.


micadeolu profile image

micadeolu 6 years ago from Celestial Church of Christ, +2347067550237.

Freethinker22,

You have just proven by your words that an Intelligent Designer does exists. The argument now if I got you right is His love towards his creatures. Somehow, I feel you have a hidden grudge against this so called Intelligent Designer whom we know and call Almighty God. What I will advise you to do is to honestly accept that He does exists and start your research on all His virtues and qualities and how you can know His will and nature.

You said.

"Intelligent Design has been dis-proven both scientifically and philosophically. Look at how brutal nature is. What is the purpose for an intelligent designer to design a flying insect with a syringe attached to an appendage specifically designed to insert it into the flesh of other animals, and people, such as innocent babies, to suck their blood out. As if that isn't sick enough, this same insect is also equipped with a parasite called Malaria. Did you know that Malaria is the deadliest disease in the world? And who does it kill? Innocent babies and children. Every single day.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Micadeolu

I'm just pointing out that if there is an Intelligent Designer, he is a malevolent designer. Something that many Christians don't like to associate God with. God is supposed to be about love. Though, I do acknowledge that some Christians do believe that God can be malevolent. Really depends what denomination or personal belief one holds. Nonetheless, you are not explaining why God created mosquitoes in the first place, and why they go around spreading deadly diseases to innocent babies. Replace the word "God" with the word "mad scientist." What if a crazy mad scientist created these little flying creatures, and they went around injecting babies with a deadly parasite. How would you feel about that? Seems like you yourself cannot explain God's nature. You tell me to blindly accept God and go do my own research on why God is a selfish, malevolent,masochistic, sick and twisted being.

Intelligent Design has been disproved scientifically in the sense that is it not accepted in the scientific community. It is not accepted because it is not a scientific theory. It is not based on empirical evidence. It is not peer reviewed. It was not created by scientists. There is no solid evidence to support it.

The scientific community has no controversy about this issue. It is propaganda brought forward by the ID movement. Irreducible complexity, a strong element for ID, claims that certain organisms cannot be reduced to a simpler form and still function. This has been debunked. For example, lets take the mouse trap analogy. ID says that if you take one piece from a mouse trap it will no longer function as a mouse trap. A lot of biological mechanisms work the same way. However, take the spring of a mouse trap alone. You can find one million uses for it. The spring came into existence way before the mouse trap, and had been used for millions of other things. In nature, it is very much the same. Simple organisms evolved into much more complex organisms over millions of years.

Intelligent Design can be disproved philosophically in the sense that it is a "God of the Gap" fallacy. Lets compare science and religion. Science makes no initial claims. Science gathers facts, data, evidence and tries to make the best conclusion out of the data gathered. If more data is gathered in the future that is not consistent with the current conclusion, science will change or adjust it's conclusion to fit the new data. Religion already has an initial claim. An initial conclusion. That is that God exists. Religion only looks for evidence that supports its own already existing conclusion and ignores all other facts. Often times, religion doesn't even want to provide evidence for it's conclusion and wants its followers to accept that conclusion based on blind faith alone.

Science may not have a solid explanation to why or how all of nature came into existence, but to assume that it was God is not scientific. There are a lot of things science has yet to explain. That doesn't mean we should go around filling what we currently don't know with God. That can be really dangerous.

A lot of people do not know or understand science. They don’t comprehend how all of the forces of nature work together. Physics, chemistry, and biology. The analogy of comparing a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a jet to evolution is very misleading. If fails to take into consideration driving forces of nature.

If you know a little bit about the history of ID, you would know that it is a falsely fabricated theory by Discovery Institute, a Christian conservative think thank. It was an attempt to re-introduce creationism disguised as a valid scientific theory into the science classes of the public school system. It was nothing more than a response to Creationism being shut out of the science class for not being a valid scientific fact.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

God created everything good, man had a choice, he chose sin and introduced it into the world, thereby causing the "fall" which also affects creation, therefore mosquitoes etc, etc. It's man's fault that evil is in the world.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Many times innocent people die from disease or natural disasters that have nothing to do with their free will. How many sins could a new born baby commit for it to deserve to die from a disease or be born deformed or sick? If you are implying that all humans are sinners by default because of Adam and Eve's sin, doesn't seem very fair to me. But its not just humans that suffer. Suffering is found all around in nature. Do you really think a gazelle really wants to have razor sharp teeth from a lion dig through its flesh?

Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners and deserve hell. That is why we need Jesus to save us. But why?

Let me ask you this, can imperfection come out of perfection? Of course not, because perfection is just that, perfect and infallible. Nothing imperfect can come out of perfection. If an all perfect God is creator and ruler of the earth, than why does sin exist? Why is there pain and suffering? You say, God is all good, and its not in his nature to do evil. Well, if all humans were created under the image of God, then we too would be perfect. Even with freewill, the option of sin wouldn't have been chosen because it wouldn't have been within our nature to do so. Is it really mans fault? Can you really blame man for suffering? I invite you to read my very first hub titled "Debunking Christianity: What was the Reason for Jesus' Sacrifice?" Where I address the issue of freewill, along with a few other issues.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yeah, it's man's fault. God gave us the capacity for choice, we chose sin and sin affects everything. We are not little God's, we are not perfect like HIM (yet). He did not make little carbon copy God's even though he made us in his image...that means he made us like him but that doesn't mean that we are HIM or little God's, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that that is not the case. You may not want to accept it but that is the way it is.

We need Jesus because the sacrifice of Jesus enables God to accept us because Jesus took the punishment that we deserve, therefore God's requirement of justice for injustice is satisfied in Jesus' sacrifice. He became sin and we become perfect (IN HIM).


Judah's Daughter profile image

Judah's Daughter 6 years ago from Roseville, CA

I only recently discovered more on the topic of "gods" (elohim) in relation to mankind ~ there actually is a passage in the Bible. Jesus quotes from Ps 82:6, which states, "I said, 'You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High'" in John 10:34: "Jesus replied to them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods'?" Some have twisted these passages to claim believers are actually little gods, but that's not what it means. Believers, saved by faith, become a part of God's family, which is defined in the Hebrew word "elohim". We are then in God and He in us and we are one with each other. However, while we live in our mortal body of flesh, we will struggle with sin. Romans 7:15-8:1 is an excellent passage that comforts me so. God bless you! :-)


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Brie

If God is omniscient, he knew before the first spec of time ever ticked, before all the mountains and rivers were created, God knew that his creations would "choose" sin. But still proceeded to create sentient beings knowing they would struggle with sin and as a result of that would have suffer and feel pain. If God can do anything, and God knows all, and God is all loving, then how can there be sin, suffering on earth, and even worse, hell?

The argument of perfection is still valid. God is perfect. God made humans. So, why are humans imperfect? Regardless of whether we are little gods or no gods we came as a result of God. If we were created from a perfect deity, then we too would be perfect. We could still have free will but we wouldn’t choose sin. Where did sin come from? Why did we choose sin? Well, God gave us free will. God also intentionally created us vulnerable to sin (this vulnerability is an imperfection that was given to us from a perfect God, an oxymoron) God allowed us to sin. Ultimately, God is responsible for everything, fore he is creator and ruler of the universe. God in an indirect way created sin. Trying to justify things differently is nothing more than a mental acrobatic to try and rationalize something that makes no sense.

Also, I used the word “we” above talking about choosing to sin. But I didn’t choose to commit that first sin. I wasn’t there. All I know is that I’m told by Christians that I am a sinner and need to accept Jesus and beg and pray for salvation, simply because I am human. I didn’t ask to be born. I didn’t ask to be placed on this earth. More importantly, I didn’t eat any fruit off any forbidden tree. By default I am still a sinner.

As far as Jesus' sacrifice goes, if God is all powerful and all loving, why couldn't he just forgive us himself for our sins? What purpose did sending Jesus down to earth really serve?

Let me question, if I may the concept of Jesus' death. Why did the “fall” of man (Adam and Eve’s sin) create a “curse” (damnation, pain, and suffering, etc..) that affected all of mankind? However, the lifting of the “curse” (Jesus’ sacrifice) only lifts the curse for some? Why not save everyone? If God is all loving, why can’t he just allow the sacrifice to be applied to all? Everyone was cursed for the sin of one person. But not everyone gets saved for the sacrifice of one person. Yet somehow, God is still “fair” and “just“.

I think the Bible is pretty clear that all humans are doomed, but only some will be saved. The probability of going to hell seems much higher than going to heaven. Why would I want to embrace an ideology that teaches me that I must bow down and worship this God, and in doing so there is still a chance that I may still end up in hell. But nonetheless, must still live a life enslaved by this dogma in hopes that I’m going to be one of the few lucky ones of receiving that special reward in an eternal magical utopian world called paradise.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

Agnosticism: admitting that you do not know, and are not willing to believe what a book amalgamated from pagan religions then used to spread a different story tells you just because that book tells you that.

I think any true connection to the divine is felt within, and is a matter of the intuition, not logic... and that is what matters: the connection to the divine, not the attempt to get people to prove a negative. The rest is self-serving intellectual separation of oneself from one's world, and one's God(s).


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

For God to forgive with no payment would go against His nature of being just. There must be justice, but God is also merciful and love..so within the sacrifice of Jesus both are fulfilled. The sacrifice of Jesus is available to ALL who will receive it. It's not a matter of embracing a theology, it's a matter of reality verses fantasy.


aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

Brie,

Freethinkers posts just prove that non believers simply cannot understand Christ and the God relationship, the bible even tells us that the word will confound those who consider themselves wise and is made for those who are considered foolish.

Very few intellectual humanists will set aside their pride for long enough to see the truth.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Freethinker, answer me this...where does good and beauty come from?


Judah's Daughter profile image

Judah's Daughter 6 years ago from Roseville, CA

Freethinker, God didn't create any man without hope of salvation, condemned to hell from the get-go. He is no respecter of persons, the Bible says. If you'd never been born, you wouldn't have the hope of overcoming sin and death and living eternally in His loving presence. The Bible has so many verses that declare Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world. It also declares He will draw ALL men to Himself when He is lifted up from the earth (which He was). Children, until they are able to make a decision on their own, are covered by the grace of God. Don't worry about these things. Jesus said we are to come to Him as a little child, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Freethinkinker, the gospel of salvation has obviously been shared with you. You must choose to accept it or reject it. Trust God to draw everyone, as He said, and know that anyone that doesn't go to be with the Lord after death has chosen that route. You will still struggle with sin until you are resurrected in a sinless, perfect body. In the meantime, the sacrifice of Jesus makes you righteous in God's eyes. What a great love!!


Josh 6 years ago

Good and beauty are subjective


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Josh, is evil subjective?


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Good, beauty, evil.. All human terms used to define things that are subjective. There are many reasons outside of religion why most all cultures find things like harming others wrong. (Sociological, psychological, and even biological reasons can explain this quite well.) What constitutes harm varies from society to society. All members in a group have their own personal opinion about whether they believe it's bad to hurt a fly or whether they believe its OK to rob and murder someone. The average of the views and opinions people have in one culture is what sets the boundaries of morality within' that culture.

That is why the difference between first degree and second degree murder varies from country to country. That is why the line between statutory rape varies from country to country. If morality was truly objective, then this wouldn't be so. There would be one standard moral truth.

Objective morality from the Bible? Let me ask you this. Is slavery wrong? I think it's safe to say that most everyone today in our culture would say slavery is immoral. The Bible not only condones slavery, but even gives a detailed mandate on how to treat slaves.

For example, the Bible says it's ok to beat a slave. As long as the slave doesn't die on the same day. If he dies the next day, it's ok.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

There are many many many other references in the Bible that are just as if not more absurd than this one.

Common counter arguments from Christians about slavery is that slavery was different back then. They were called "servants" who needed to "pay off debt". It was common within' that culture. Not the same thing as American slavery.

The central point here is about objective morality. It is immoral in our culture today to own another human being as personal property. It is immoral to treat another human being as personal property. And it is immoral to own another human being as property for the sole purpose of having that other human being do manual labor for his owner. Call is servant, slave, whatever..

If morality from the Christian God is objective, then why was slavery perfectly fine back then, but considered completely immoral today?

Could it be that the Christian God does not exist and that the Bible was written by the hands of man with no guide from a supernatural being? And that those men could only write about what they understood and knew within' time frame and culture in which they lived?

I'm sure you would beg to differ. But since the question came up, thought I would address it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Tell me which culture thinks it's ok to murder?

Slavery in the bible is not the same as modern day slavery, in the bible it was more like an employer, employee relationship.

You don't understand the references in the bible because you don't understand the context, nor do you want to understand because it wouldn't matter. Your mind is closed to God so nothing would matter.

I KNOW the Christian God exists, I have a personal relationship with Him.

If you are really interested you should read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis an ex-atheist. However, I don't think you really want to know the truth.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

You can't prove the existence of God just by saying that you believe in Him or that a book is written about Him.

Actually, I think that it's pretty much impossible to prove the existence of something beyond physical reality using only signs within physical reality.

It's equally pointless to try to get someone with a fervent personal connection to something to pretend it doesn't exist. Actually.. not pointless, as people can be made to change their minds... but... pointless to do so and honor the higher truth of what that personal connection to what is holy means. People aren't machines.

Really though, I think there is flaws in the process of defining these things. Since possibilities such as the bible being based on misinterpretation, and the possibility that faith is being placed in the bible and an institution rather than an actual deity or an actual experience... well... this just isn't a ration discussion. It's doomed to be a completely pointless conflict until both sides can agree to look at the discussion from both sides and objectively... which is pretty much damned as heresy, or incompatible with logical though, respectively.

Atheism: "I don't believe in what I can't see or make a machine out of. Oh, but we'd better keep analyzing genetic patterns, right?"

Theism: "I'm right because I believe, and I believe because I believe"

...

If God exists, then He exists as more than we could possibly describe in a book, and as more than any one person's personal experience.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Tchardo:

"If God exists, then He exists as more than we could possibly describe in a book, and as more than any one person's personal experience."

If god exists, then we can't describe it, right? So then how can we know that god exists?


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Slavery is an employer employee relationship? Except for the employee was the employers physical personal property used solely for the purpose of labor. No compensation was ever earned by the "employee". The employer was also allowed to buy sell and beat his employee... I don't think you can get away with that in today's world. "My boss beat the crap out of me, and know he wants to sell me!" Sounds like a lawsuit to me. A good friend of mine, an ex hardcore evangelical, when he de-converted the slavery issue in the Bible was one (of many) big issues he had with Christianity.

You should also read some books from John Loftus, an ex-Christian and ex follower of William Lane Craig. John Lofust - "Why I Became and Athiest" Gary Lanier - "Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith" Or some classics like "Age of Reason" by Thomas Pain.

Look, many good books have been written by Christians, ex-Christians, and non-theists. It is always a good thing to enlighten your mind with knowledge from ALL sides.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Tchardo

you make a good point. But I don't think you really understand the atheism side very well yourself though.. You describe atheism as "I'm right because I can't see it"...

That is not what atheism is about. For some atheists,maybe. But for better educated atheists it gets a little more complex then that. Let me try and make an illustration here.

Say, you take me to visit a mountain I have never seen before. Ask me what is on the other side of the mountain. I don't know. Because I have never been there. However, I can list an infinite amount of things that I know with one hundred and one percent certainty that do not exist on the other side of the mountain. I know I will not find Mars. I know I will not find a pink flying unicorn. I know I will not find a square triangle. I can go on and on. But if I did have to guess what might be there? I would guess that I would find trees, maybe more mountains, a bear and deer. I could be wrong. Maybe non of that exists there. Maybe lava has destroyed all forms of life on the other side of the mountain. I don't know?

However, what would be a more rational and logical thing to conclude? Would you vote for the pink unicorn? Or would you vote for a big hungry grizzly bear???


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You know Freethinker, if good and beauty are subjective (which I disagree but we'll go with it because you believe it) then evil and ugliness are subjective too. Therefore, without God, there is no evil, therefore your question is mute (the original question of evil in the face of a personal Creator God).

Moreover, your most recent post to Tchardo makes my point more than it does yours. If there is order in the universe and everything has a cause and effect then it makes sense that there would be a God, and not a random one time instant pop up of creation since there is not other instance of that.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Brie, just because there is order in the universe does not mean there is a God.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It is reasonable to suppose that since where there is order there is intelligence.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Almost all instances of order in the universe lack intelligence.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The intelligence is manifested by the order...it's God's intelligence. For example if you walk into a forest and see rows of lavender rose bushes and other roses of perfected trimmed red rose bushes you assume a caretaker, the same is for creation, there is order therefore there is a creator. In nature we see order, we see seasons, we see the day and the night, we see a see planted in a dirt that reproduces another like seed, therein is order, therefore an intelligence and therefore a Creator. If you can't understand that I must assume you are being willfully ignorant because even a child understand that.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

You assume that order requires a creator. Why?


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

The biggest problem in all of this is the two incompatible bases for viewpoint. One side is seeing things only in terms which it has already defined empirically, the other has decided on account of faith that "God" is a concept dictated by a book written before the concept of empirical proof existed.

Without scripture an authority, trying to define something by evidence is best left without a preconceived definition... a creator may not be Yahweh as we, flawed beings, have defined him, or not be Allah, or not be Brahman, as we have defined those. Truth speaks for itself without previous reference, and it is THAT which will provide proof.

Admitting that we don't know what we we don't know is the first step toward wisdom and true understanding. Thomas the doubter alone among the apostles got to put his hand in the wound.

There is of course also the problem of the intellect... of overextending some knowledge and deciding that it is preeminent, when it is actually premature, and only a lesser truth among many that constitute reality. Data is solid, relevant to circumstance, and the conclusions and theories we adopt are definitions achieved by way of exclusion... exclusion in an unfathomably large universe which is also somehow apparently connected to influences beyond itself (superstring theory and zero-point fields and such), in circumstances where basically anything is possible; the more we decide we know, the farther from the whole truth we actually are.

You can't prove a negative, and nor can you prove infinity. It's a stalemate.

Secularist:

How do we know? Well, how do you define knowing lol. Empirically, I have no confidence in any attempt to prove a creator, but at least that would be better than trying to empirically prove the Bible to be literally true.

There is the game of odds though... the chances of life evolving as it has here, of the circumstances, of us developing awareness (and the question "what is experiencing this through use of your brain?" can't really be defined, only pointed at through all the corresponding figures associated with neural activity), of us having survived everything so far... are incredibly staggering. The pattern seems to suggest that it is more reasonable to suggest that there is some sort of design than that it all just happened by chance... but then one needs to ask how one evaluates reason itself lol... it just goes on and on in circles.

I think that subjectively one can understand the numinous as it affects oneself... the feeling of being in touch with deity. It is measurable by the change it has on oneself.

There are, of course, numerous alternative viewpoints on what that state of consciousness "actually is", and it could of course just be a person fooling themselves. But as an effect, "God" is very real subjectively. Just too many people experiencing something of the sort.

Freethinker:

You got me. I exaggerated :) Three points from house Tchardo.

Anyway, Atheism is actually pretty broad. I just means everything that isn't Theism. It even contains spiritualism of sorts like Atheistic Agnosticism, along with empirical schools of thought like Darwinism, and for that matter... Buddhism (mostly... lol, it varies between a religion, a philosophy, and in how much it involves deity figures, but what Shakyamuni taught just basically involved clear understanding and hard work irregardless of mythology or concepts of deity, even if that mythology and such became involved as a reference to the teachings and as tools of the teachings)

If you define a pink fuzzy unicorn or spaghetti monster as a symbol though, rather than literal truth, then definition has no relevance... unless you attempt to measure it in the mathematical figures surrounding unconscious brain activity associated with the imagining of that symbol, but even though archetypes may be common to the collective unconscious, the data from someone's neural activities are still subjective in how they relate to a personal unconscious.

The example of what's on the other side of the mountain is different from the question of God, I think, because we can learn very thoroughly and measurably the layout of a mountain, but even God as defined by something extra-dimensional and all-permeating (like zero-point field theory or superstrings) is beyond our measurement... we can only extrapolate from what we do know, and are so limited by what we have already seen. Best we can do is form theories... interpretations of solid data into less solid findings.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Tchardo:

"You can't prove a negative, and nor can you prove infinity. It's a stalemate."

Exactly. That's why agnosticism is the answer. Yet you are not an agnostic.

You mention the odds of humans developing on earth, surviving this far, etc. But in reality, it was almost impossible that this would NOT happen: the universe is so vast, with so much matter and energy, and such a staggering variety of planets and environments that it was all but guaranteed that intelligent life would arise somewhere at some time. So, given the nature of the universe, if anything, the odds were always with us, not against us. No god needed.

"But as an effect, "God" is very real subjectively. Just too many people experiencing something of the sort."

Subjectivity is a flawed and very dangerous basis to claim the "truth." God is not needed to explain any such experiences, not even close.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

I never claimed what I believe yet Secularist ;)

I just meant that to say that the pattern seems to suggest that something more likely has happened to design this, and that that suggestion is accepted as preeminent by some people.

Subjectivity IS a dangerous basis for claiming "The Truth"... I think any claim of "The Truth" is also dangerous to some extent, but useful for convention and to have productive results from such thinking. I'm agreed that whenever a subjective interpretation of a personal experience get projected onto other peoples personal experiences, that something gets lost along the way, but more dangerously so in that it acts as a system of control of the many by the few.

The vast majority of numinous experiences, though, have elements in common, such as the opening of one's self into higher states of love and connectedness, or heightened awareness of self in relation to the world, or psychological integration... and it seems to be furthered by the effects of religion in billions of cases within this lifetime alone. Many religions enrich peoples lives, and the tenets of those faiths bring people to live lives more fully than anything in life possibly ever could do for them... that in itself is a miracle.

Really though, you're arguing against a kind of knowing which can't be quantified. You have one thing going for you though; while religions cannot open peoples eyes toward their various sorts of doctrinal spiritualities, atheism can close peoples eyes.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Tchardo, well you seemed to indicate that you come down on the creation/ design/ god side of the fence. Also much of your rhetoric has indicated an intellectual preference for religion and spirituality over atheism or skepticism. But please, let me know if I'm wrong.

More to the point, you say the vast majority of religious experiences have commonalities. This can be explained, as I indicated, without any supernatural. For example, insofar as human brains are all hardwired in basically similar ways, we would expect similar experiences (visions, out-of-body experiences, etc) under similar conditions (stress, religious rituals, etc).

Also, humans have evolved a tendency to be caring toward in-group members. The religious say "Aha! It's because we're all created in God's image!" Whereas a secular person understands this is simply a function of natural selection. That doesn't mean there is no god, but it does mean that god is unnecessary to explain that.

Religion does enhance many people's lives, but again, religion is totally not necessary in this regard--we see secular phenomena having the same effects for personal and community life.

You say "you're arguing against a kind of knowing which can't be quantified." As I indicated above, if spiritual "knowing" cannot be quantified, objectified or tested, it is useless. Thus it is not really "knowing" at all. It's self-defeated.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

Really, I can argue both sides. I mean, if the scientific community's basis for exploring this is solely acceptable, then I'd have to say that you are right... there's no scientific basis suitable enough to offset the standard approach to the unquantified: skepticism. If, however, one has experience of the divine, then it is just on a different plane than empirical reasoning; such an influence on a person can provide what data alone cannot: purpose, meaning, and a vertical scale of priorities.

Again, this is just like trying to get men and women to speak the same language when both sides refuse to see things from the others' perspectives. It is useless to try to apply that sort of "knowing" to the sort of empirical scale you're working in here, Secularist. It's simply not a secular topic lol.

No offense intended, you seem quite intelligent, and given the limitations on your perspective (as the other side sees it), I think you'd probably be best applying your efforts on your side of the fence, even though I'm the first to admit that people around here could benefit from a different perspective on things which they aren't inclined to question (which is a necessary process, in my opinion)

If it seems as though I'm "not on your side", it's because I feel I have to be to balance you... if I don't you're just going to get a lot more "God says otherwise" ;)

Peace.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Tchardo, it seems like you're one of those moderate, in the middle, "everyone be happy and get along" type of people. You're talking about a divine expeirence providing purpose and meaning to an individual. Something that an atheist, or someone on the other side of the argument cannot understand. Well, you know maybe that experience was given from god or maybe not. However, if we can explain psychologically, and scientifically why people have certain "religious" experiences, then there is really no need to say it's god. If everything within nature can be explained within nature alone... If we can explain everything without the need of having to go outside of nature, or with out the need of a "supernatural" explanation, then why allow people to believe in supernatural nonsense? Religion and the concept of gods have been around for thousands of years. They have yet to solve any of the worlds problems, and continue to create more problems. I don't see anything wrong with persuading people to let go of primitive fairytale myths. It's the year 2010. We no longer live in the dark ages.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Tchardo, I understand very well that some people believe a secular approach and a spiritual approach are simply dealing with two "non-overlapping" realms of knowledge. Let me try to explain why the secular approach to knowledge is not just "different" from a spiritual approach, but indeed superior.

Secular reason deals with testability and objective knowledge. Religion deals with untestable subjective experience.

You say the stuff of religion is simply untestable by nature... and that's precisely my point. If an idea or a claim cannot be tested, it is not meaningful. Why? Because there is no way of knowing if it's true. And that is what we are dealing with--truth. Religion makes a claim to truth, but we can't know if it's true!

Aside from really figuring out if X is true or not, all we have is opinion, conjecture or imagination. Those things are important for human experience, to be sure. But they do not help us determine the truth.

Put another way: (1) Either there is a supernatural world or there isn't. (2) How do we know if it exists or not? (3) By doing things like testing the idea. (4) But we can't test the idea. (5) Therefore we can't know if it exists or not.

We can't know if the person who has a supernatural "experience" is experiencing something real, or is just hallucinating. We can't test it, so we can't know. If we can't know, then we can't accept it.

This does not mean that there is no god, there is no afterlife, etc. But it does mean that if there is, we cannot know it. Therefore non-acceptance is the default position.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

I am proudly moderate in a universe of infinite possibilities.

To be fair to myself though, you guys have backed me into a corner of having to defend religion, when I'm personally more about a spiritual experience, and applying techniques like Yoga and Transcendental Meditation for their tangible effect.

... anyway...

An account of details surrounding something is not an understanding of that something! One can amass a library full of neural data about consciousness, and not really understand what awareness or experience really is; "the finger point at the moon is NOT THE MOON"

Similarly with psychology... it is very controversial, and it is founded around abstractions. Yes, they can be very useful abstractions, doing a lot of good for a lot of people, and there is data supporting trends in thought, but what is taken from those findings are theories.

Unlike those scientific disciplines applicable in the short term, religion's influence isn't as tangible... but it's rooted so deeply in western society's culture in regard to values, morality, constructive behavioral patterns, and views on worthwhile goals... it seems actually impossible to use the words good or evil without actually implying and using judgments derived from Christian scripture - it has formed us that thoroughly. Civilization itself has had a codependent relationship with religion from it's very beginnings, so to with language and religion.

The dark ages were not a product of religion, and it was religion actually which was the only thing really keeping a practice of literacy, bookkeeping, and education, while people fell back on habits from older times which didn't suit the circumstances which had come about through civilizing influences... like population growth, and an increased dependency on monetary systems.

This is about when you mention the Crusades, right? When in the name of Christ half of an entire generation were sent overseas to exterminate Muslims? That may have used the name of religion to direct the people and excuse their actions, but the motivation was already there in their desperation (and corrupt ambition), and it was politics which needed to use the church to move the people.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nigel.nicholson/hn/Cr...

Religious strife today seems to me to be more of a product of intolerance and lack of close relations between different religions. People confuse their individual versions of holy texts with their actual deities and messages of those deities as one might confuse a finger pointing at the moon to be the moon itself.

Why ALLOW religion? Because it makes an indisputable difference in peoples lives; where scientific findings, even psychology, only provides tools, religions create personal change... they show us how any give us reasons why, and why not, to use or not use certain tools based on an understanding of ourselves. Many people are given immense inspiration to make much more of their lives, have life be so much more meaningful and beneficial to others, than if those people were not given the guidance of their religions.

To persuade people to let go of their religions, without doing justice to the possible importance which those religions play to the quality of the fabric of society or for their own personal growth or wellbeing, is irresponsible, and nonconstructive. It is an act against the meaning of life itself in favor of delusions of pride, arrogance, and materialistic empowerment, and it is contradictory of any claim that secular understanding allows people to think for themselves.

Let people make up their own minds without trying to reduce complicated things into simple classifications. That's all I'm trying to say: learn, understand, love, respect.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

Secularist: Yes, that's empiricism. I'm familiar.

The problem with that, as I went over before, is our tendency to make findings more solid than they really are. To learn a little knowledge, then form conclusions as concrete. It works for a great many things, and actually it works for everything eventually I think...

... but...

it's still just what we think. The intellect has finite limitations, and we are all, essentially, delusional or crazy, flawed human beings, as our behavior shows again and again, and all the more punctuated the more we are sure that what we know is preeminent truth.

What doesn't fit into the mechanistic view of science is the concept of purpose. Neither does the purpose of human life. Ideas are meaningful in their effects, and religions have ideas which psychology can attempt to categorize in a paltry sort of way, but it is still within the essential delusion of us thinking that because we can NOUN something, that that something is a now a cog in a machine or a predictable, limiting, form of a system.

In surrendering the ego and intellect to the unconscious mind, and one which is connected to the "power of the creator permeating the cosmos" (or God, or whatever), we see people altered. Religion provides a set of lifestyle systems which in theory promotes the development of residing within that effect (or within awareness of His Love)... or however worthwhile religions define it. You can't get that from science alone, even if you can organize your life in an inorganic fashion.

This is a circular argument. It's been fun for awhile... but that's it for me, probably.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Well, Tchardo, it’s too bad you think this discussion is a waste of time--I thought it was just getting interesting.

"The problem with that, as I went over before, is our tendency to make findings more solid than they really are. To learn a little knowledge, then form conclusions as concrete...The intellect has finite limitations"

You are simply pointing out the limited nature of human thought. This says nothing about the superiority or inferiority of one system of knowledge over another, but rather of the limitations of systems of knowledge in general. I absolutely agree that all human knowledge is limited... but some knowledge is more limited than others. I'm sure you will not argue that a theory that has been tested and verified countless times is just as limited--or just as useful--as somebody's "hunch." They are both limited, of course, but one is far more limited than the other.

Unless we are to go to the extreme and say that "absolutely nothing is truly provable or knowable" and just give up on finding truth altogether, we must make a choice. I submit the best choice is that approach that has answered countless questions large and small, and continues to do so. And it's not religion.

"What doesn't fit into the mechanistic view of science is the concept of purpose. Neither does the purpose of human life."

This really speaks to the is-ought problem, which is a permanent philosophical problem for all explanatory frameworks, religious or secular. Just because religion couches much of its thinking in terms of "a higher power" or a "divine plan," it does not follow logically that people should follow that plan. You simply can't derive an "ought" from an "is," so religion does NOT have an advantage in that regard.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The "ought" problem is solved with the God solution. If there was no God there would be no "ought".


BDazzler profile image

BDazzler 6 years ago from Gulf Coast, USA

Brie, your logic is impeccable. The secularist seems to miss that simple truth, if there is no authority on how things "should" be, then it doesn't matter. Without a truly Objective Entity, truly objective truth is impossible, because each of us can only speak from our own subjective experience.

The very assertion that objectivity and truth exist implies an Ultimate Reality. Since we know from personal experience that intelligence exists, why is it such a big deal that this Ultimate Reality is Objective and has intelligently authored the "Oughts" and "Shoulds".

Objective reality cannot be measured. I remember too many times my parents working on the house and arguing about the objective reality of where the bubble was on the level.

The level was a scientific instrument, yet two people honestly trying to use it for the same thing, with the exact same data could not agree on the objective reality about what was truly square.

And if an instrument as simple as a level is subjective then all other instruments and therefore science is also subjective.

The secularist is espousing bad science by asserting objectivity when none exists... unless of course, there's a God. Without God, objectivity is an illusion.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Once again my fans/friends have come to my rescue. Thanks Bdazzler, I get weary arguing all the time so I tend to be short in some of my responses. I get a lot of comments and try to answer them all but I truly get weary sometimes and I am very grateful for you and others who come along to fill in the blanks.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Just because God has a plan, it does not follow we OUGHT to follow it. The problem remains.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

"The secularist is espousing bad science by asserting objectivity when none exists... unless of course, there's a God. Without God, objectivity is an illusion."

BDazzler, objectivity does not depend on God. Objective reality is simply the reality that exists outside of us, independent of any individual's experience or assumptions. It does not have to do with God or lack thereof.

As I said, just because God says we ought to do something, it does not logically follow we should do that.

The is: God wants us to do X

The ought: we should do X.

The "ought" does not follow from the "is." The problem remains.


Tchardo profile image

Tchardo 6 years ago

Me: "What doesn't fit into the mechanistic view of science is the concept of purpose. Neither does the purpose of human life."

secularist: "This really speaks to the is-ought problem, which is a permanent philosophical problem for all explanatory frameworks, religious or secular. Just because religion couches much of its thinking in terms of "a higher power" or a "divine plan," it does not follow logically that people should follow that plan. You simply can't derive an "ought" from an "is," so religion does NOT have an advantage in that regard."

This is where I completely agree with you, and why I don't go to church (or a mosque for that matter). I simply lack faith in politicized institutions, and have beliefs which are contradicted by scripture while they make more sense to me as being relevant to myself and this world.

It just does seem that things work out for the best when people go with what "that part of them which resides in the light" draws them to, and when they uphold what many of the lessons in the bible teach.

I'd never say that it isn't an interesting conversation, secularist :) It just takes up a lot of time and goes round and round and round, and usually it ends up with people just not paying attention to each other anymore.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Tchardo, well I agree with that--unfortunately often these discussions don't get anywhere. To say nothing of the personal attacks that often arise. Brie doesn't want links in this hub, but I recently wrote a hub on agnosticism you might be interested in--you can get to it through my profile. I will also be writing more on religious/ secular issues soon. You are more than welcome to comment/ discuss if you want to continue the conversation.


BDazzler profile image

BDazzler 6 years ago from Gulf Coast, USA

Secularist. Your response shows a total lack of understanding of the nature of God, and is exactly opposite of what I said and meant. I'm sorry. I cannot have a logical discussion with someone who fails to comprehend self-evident axioms, and twists meaning either deliberately or by being so deceived they consider their own subjectivity to be objective.

If you were following actual logic, then your logic should lead to a discussion on the nature of God, not his existence or lack thereof. I do not mean to be unkind, but either by your nature or your choice, you do not seem to be capable of understanding this. In either case, I respectfully leave you to your own subjective conclusions.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

BDazzler: “If you were following actual logic, then your logic should lead to a discussion on the nature of God, not his existence or lack thereof.”

I suggest you read the title of this hub.

If you really were so “logical,” you would demonstrate to me how I am wrong through simple, straightforward reason. The fact that you do not use reason to debate me, but rather try to delegitimize me by attacking my intelligence, is telling.

Too bad. I’ve heard much more impressive arguments from other theists. Perhaps if you made an honest attempt to dig deeply into what you believe you would find it’s not as ironclad or “self-evident” as you think.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Or perhaps he doesn't wish to argue with someone who is close-minded and doesn't use logic.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

Brie, calling people "closed-minded" is one thing. Demonstrating it is another.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I'm sorry secularist10 but I'm going to have to cut you off, you comments are starting to bore me.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Sad to see an interesting conversation being brought down by ad hominem attacks.

Bdazzler, I would like to challenge your reasoning about objectivity. If I understand correctly, you claim that objectivity can only exist with God. Science alone, without God, is subjective, along with anything else. I couldn't disagree more.

Lets look at your "level" analogy. The level, a scientific instrument, a tool, is used to measure if a surface is flat. I assure you that there is a single objective truth to how flat a surface is. However, if two different people are standing in two different places, and looking at the bubble from their own personal perspective, then they may disagree on where the bubble is. Also, it is interesting to point out that science can objectively explain WHY a person standing on one angle of the level sees the bubble at a different position than another person standing at a different angel. But I assure you that if both persons were to stand on the exact same spot, (all other constants the same height, eyesight etc..), they would perceive the bubble to be on the exact same spot.

"Without a truly Objective Entity, truly objective truth is impossible, because each of us can only speak from our own subjective experience." Yes, we all do have our own personal experiences in life. But certain things are nothing more than facts. To say that without a truly objective entity truth is impossible is nothing more than an assumption. On what grounds can you justify this statement? Secondly, I can easily say that science alone can provide truth. I can provide stronger evidence that science is objective. Much more subjective than religion. If science alone can be objective, then why need God, or an "objective entity"?

Besides the level analogy in which I have already proved to be objective, let me throw out some more random cut-and-dry examples that prove science to be objective. If we all look at a black dog, then we can all say it's a black dog. Nothing subjective about. Science explains perfectly how color (or lack thereof) is perceived. If someone were to jump off a building without a parachute or anything more, then that person would go flat on the ground. I don’t think you would disagree. There is nothing subjective about gravity.

When you get in your car and drive to work every day, it is objective science that makes your car work. When you get on your computer to reply to my post (if you will) you will find that science is what makes your computer screen and your computer work. Science is what allows us to have intriguing conversations hundreds of miles away (unless you live right down the street from me and I don't know…). If science was subjective, I don't think scientists would be able to agree on how to make anything work.

If you try and counterargue this by saying that science is only objective because there is an objective entity that allows it all to happen, well then, that is nothing more than a subjective opinion.

Lastly, if you’re going to use the argument of objective morality… Well, I have already responded to this above. But let me try and do it again but more concisely…

We can explain scientifically why humans within a culture, group, or society, don’t see it beneficial to harm each other for the survival of that society. Humans have evolved to be social creatures, and we thrive best individually when we are within groups. There, simple and quick explanation to why we believe it is wrong to hurt one another. No need for God. You still think this is evidence for objective morality? So, people might agree it is wrong to hurt each other, but to what extent and to the precise definition that leads to varies drastically. Every culture, group, or society is raised differently. Very much like an individual. The norms of what is wrong or right within a group is nothing more than the mixed combinations of what every person within that group thinks. The norms within a group are made of the average, the mean, of what everyone in the group thinks. That is why the differences between first degree and second degree murder varies from culture to culture. If objective morality was true, then murder would be murder. Period. But no, its very subjective.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Wouldn't it "benefit" the human race to kill the mentally deficient or others who don't "contribute" to society? I believe the Nazi's were of that opinion.

If there is no God how can you say they were wrong? If we are just a bunch of cells there is no right or wrong.

Murder is murder...it is always wrong to kill an innocent person and every culture has laws against that...now killing is another matter.

BTW, I believe Bdazzler never said that science alone without God is subjective, he said that it is objective (ie the bubble is marking the flat place)but that we subjectively interpret when we cannot agree as to where the bubble is.

The very fact that science is objective points to an objective Creator.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

Why would an all loving God create mentally or physically handicapped people to begin with? You're right, evolutionarily speaking, organisms with a handicap usually die off in the wild. Humans have evolved with intelligence, therefore we can use science, medicine, and technology to keep people with handicaps alive or make their lives much more comfortable. It is completely natural for a mother who gives birth to a handicapped child to still love that child and want to keep it alive. To make the assumption that without God, we would barbarically go and kill every handicapped person in our society is an absolutely and completely absurd statement.

The argument of morality from a theistic standpoint is self defeating. To act morally in the hopes of being rewarded with heaven or because of the fear hell is very selfish. Most, I believe, would agree that acting selfish is immoral. A secular humanist who simply believes in helping others without that expectation of reward or punishment is not selfish... Not only can we explain morality without God, but then it becomes senseless when we do place God in the picture.

"The very fact that science is objective points to an objective creator"

As I have already said, that is nothing more than a subjective opinion.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

As I've already mentioned God did not create imperfection, we brought it in through sin.

It is "natural" because God has instilled it. The point I was making is that if we are just cells and tissue then as such we would only care about the species that propagate the species and we would let the others die. Since evolution is untrue and we are not just tissue and cells that have come about through accident we do care about those that are weak and without use as far as the species go.

We do not "act morally" because of heaven or hell, we act morally because we were made in the image of God and he put a conscience in us to guide us to act morally and to feel guilty when we refuse to do so.

RE: the objectivity of science and your comment that that is a subjective opinion, that is a fallacious argument. The very order of science (the creation) is evidence of a Creator. If science were disorderly and things popped into being with no regard to scientific protocol then you might have some evidence for Evolution, but that is not the case.


FreeThinker22 profile image

FreeThinker22 6 years ago from Richmond, VA

God created imperfection because we brought it on ourselves? What kind of sin could a newborn baby really bring? In what kind of ways can a newborn human life that knows NOTHING about life offend God? A newborn baby offends God so much in a way that it deserves to be born physically or mentally handicapped? Oh wait.. You're talking about the "fall" of man? Adam and Eve, right? Original sin? A very weak response to justify the actions of an "all loving" God. (Unless you're one of those Christians who doesn't believe God to be love... which then really gives no incentive to worship this God, a God of malice and hate...) I do not want to get into too much detail about this right here... but I have already invited you to read my hub where I have already addressed the ridiculous notion of sin and the fall of man, along with a few other fallacious Christian ideals. I'll just say quickly that If I were an all loving God, I would never place a loaded gun in my children's playpen.

If we're just cells? If we're just cells then we can't be rational? We can't think? We can't function? Neuroscience has already proven that our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions of neurons within' our brain. Something that may be difficult for a creationist Christian to comprehend. But I think it’s amazing how science can explain in detail how the human brain is capable of formulating thought. Through thought, of course, also comes choice, intelligence, “morality”. If you think about it deeply, is it really so absurd for intelligence to exist without God? It begs the question. How can God be intelligent? You may say… Oh well God is God. All powerful. God doesn't need an explanation. God exists outside of nature and is therefore not bound to the laws of nature. Right? It is so easy to spout out nonsense like this. This kind of thought, though, really kills any reason to give any explicit rational and logical explanation to what God really is. Or HOW and WHY God functions.

Seriously, cut out the middle man. A middle man protected by the laws of logic and reasoning. Why is God moral? Or HOW is God intelligent? You say, God is moral, God is intelligent. But humans? They can’t be all of that on their own without God. Why??? You cannot answer that. You attempt to justify Gods existence through the very fact that we exist, nature exists, morality exists… By stating that we exist, nature, and morality exists says nothing more that that. By no means does it say God exists or created it all. More specifically, by no means does it say God X created it all compared to God Y. I assure you that all the passion, energy, and effort you put into justifying YOUR God…. Someone else out there, with an equal amount of passion from their heart, is trying to defend a completely different God from yours.

Evolution is false? Lets clarify evolution a little. First off, Evolution is not about the origins of the universe or the origins of life. Evolution is simply a theory that describes the diversification of life. If life was started by a Christian God or an alien life form, the evidence of evolution is still strong. Change works one small step at a time... It takes millions of years for dramatic change to be noticed. There is ample evidence to support evolution. Common ancestry, structure, biochemistry, and the development of organisms alive today. The fossil record alone is solid evidence for evolution. All life alive today has a common ancestor. And no, it is not Adam and Eve. Why is it that no modern human fossilized structure has been found that dates back to prehistoric times? Are you going to say that the devil planted all the fossils we found? Or maybe Satan planted dinosaur fossils in the earth as well, right? Do you believe that modern day humans walked with the dinosaurs and all the dinosaurs were killed during the great flood.?

You will believe a doctor, (who is also a scientist) when you get sick. You will take medicine to make you feel better. You have trust in science when it can save our life. But, you will also completely and ignorantly disregard a scientist who explains evolution.

Simply put, to deny evolution as a solid and valid scientific theory is just as ridiculous to deny gravity as a solid and valid scientific theory. The evidence for both are just as equally compelling. I dare you to jump out of a building with out a parachute or any other aid. I dare you…


al 6 years ago

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits that then turned into dinosaurs.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 6 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Al- Touchdown! Extra point... Good!

Katiem2- I always enjoy reading your hubs. You are a beautiful soul. I will go to war and fight against all odds with you any day.


Scott 6 years ago

Atheists do not beleive something came from nothing, rather they accept that not everything is known and stride towards knowledge of the unknown.

This article is no different than the millions of other Christian watchmaker agruments. The God Theory is typically supporting the Christian God, rather than a polytheist or other non-Christian diety system. It is a possibility that there is a God, or God-like entity, however it is foolish to draw conclusions of such vast ignorance.

The Christian religion shouldn't be humored anymore, it is complete nonsese that has outlived its primary uses.

I have a question for the Christians that would like to respond. What is with all the distain for Athiests?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have no disdain for Atheists; I just think that they are willfully ignorant of the truth.


Scott 6 years ago

Willfully ignorant? Meaning that Athiests well know there is a God and choose to ignore it? I don't see what there is to gain by waisting your life on fairy tales. I am going to make an assumption that you are from a Christian family where your ideas were well supported, this is the only reason you can reach adulthood and still beleive that when you die a Santa Claus will be waiting for you.

I use to think that at least these people were happy that they beleive life is a big fairy tale and all their good deeds will be rewarded. However, I have not really seen them be any different in the day to day from anyone else. I fail to see the benefit anymore. The only fun left in it is trying to assert your faith onto those who do not want it in some strange attempt to "save them."


Winston 6 years ago

Truly amazing - the only reasonsable voice barred for not agreeing with theist nonsense. Now THERE is some openmindedness for you. LoLoLoLoL.


Scott 6 years ago

I don't understand your post Winston. Could you reword/elaborate.


Winston 6 years ago

Theism and atheism are not polar opposites, no matter how the theist tries to paint the picture of equality of beliefs by falsely claiming atheism is the "belief" that there is no god. The reality is that atheism is a rejection of t-h-e-i-s-t belief, not its own belief system.

One does not have to believe there is no god - all one need do is realize that there is no empirical data to suggest an actual being god exists anywhere in the universe. This requires no belief - only a degree of knowledge.

As there is no physical object god in the universe, god is nothing more than a concept, an idea, a thought, and as such could not have existed before biological brains existed that could think up concepts like gods.

Any "order" observed in the universe had to be there before biological minds existed, too, so this "order" claimed as proof of "god" had to be there before man's mind even created the concept of god and thus this supposed order could not have been a result of the handiwork of any god.

If you disagree, perhaps you could point out the object "god" in the universe, its size, height, length, weight, and where in the universe it exists. If you cannot produce a physical object "god", then "god" is nothing but a concept, and thus is only y-o-u-r idea, a belief.

Rejecting your belief does not constitute a counter-belief. It is just rational thinking.


Scott 6 years ago

Exactly Winston.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Scott: They/You are willfully ignorant of all the evidence for God that surrounds them/you. It's not a matter of "being happy" it's a matter of reality.

Air has not size, nor weight yet it exists Winston. The "order" is within the nature of God and was there before we existed in Him.


Scott 6 years ago

You understand that air has a defined mass per unit volume 1.2 kg/m^3. Otherwise your car would have far less resistance going down the freeway at 60 mph.

78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide

You say I am ignorant of God, but apparently you are ignorant of science, and air...

For all of our sakes could you please take a chemistry/physics/biology course so you would have some entry level knowledge of the world before convincing yourself that experts of their field are wrong. I promise you it will make a lot more sense.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Do ideas have size and weight? Do they exist?


Scott 6 years ago

When you get down to it, yes ideas have a weight, a size, and exist in the brain. They are created and stored for future access. If ideas did not have a size a weight, there would be no way for you to recall them.


Winston 6 years ago

Brie,

I can tell you from my own experience of being reared in a virtual cult of fundamental Christian dogmatism that when you begin to feek compelled to convince yourself through the application of misguided logic that your god does indeed exist, your own faith has already been undermined by cognitive dissonance created not by any god but by your own natural ability to reason and think rationally.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You both are certifiable. I am not "compelled" to convince myself of anything, I KNOW God exists with 100% certainty. You both will find out that He exists one day, I hope sooner more than later.


Winston 6 years ago

"Do ideas have size and weight?"

No, ideas do not have size and weight. They are a priori, that is, of the mind therefore do not resolove to any object in the universe. The have no LWH. Ideas are thoughts, only.

"Do they exist?"

It is impossible to prove a thought exists. All we can do is think a thought exists or believe it exists - but prove it??? No can do.

I can imagine a red-polka dotted flying dragon three feet tall with a yellow lightening-bolt jagged tail but I cannot for the life of me make that critter pop out of my mind and "exist". Replace this "flying dragon" with "god" and you will have learned something today - you cannot prove existence with thought and logic. Existence is of the physical, objective world.

"I KNOW God exists with 100% certainty. You both will find out that He exists one day, I hope sooner more than later."

You certainly sound like a Christian fundamentalist - perhaps while you are at it you would like to film our heads being cut off on the internet, or fly planes into our houses, or maybe set your shoes on fire in the airplane seat next to us....

For the record, I hope you have a wonderful life. At the same time, I hope no one you support is ever elected for political office.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You are getting confused that is what Muslims do, not Christians. I hope that you learn who God is so that you will miss Hell. God is not created, he is not a being like us that is where you err.


Scott 6 years ago

I am not mentally ill. I will move on to another simple fact. Christianity was stolen from religions before it. It is no more legitimate than Egyptian Mythology. Jesus is just a revised version of Horus. We can argue the concept of just a God being a possibiliy, but when we get to a specific religion and why it is false, there is no contest. It was all made up for a purpose, and that purpose has been outlived. I hope such obstacles as religion can be overcome rather than it stagnating progress. The most umbearable part that you have shown with the greatest abiity is their complete disinterest in educating themselves because a simple "God did it" is enough for them. To be clear this is only a small group of Christians inside the umbrella of Christianity, but there are enough of them to cause problems.

Also Winston has a great writing style.


Winston 6 years ago

"God is not a being like us...."

I agree - god is invisible, green, about 3 feet tall with a yellow lighting-bolt jagged tail and he flies around on dragon's wings....writing laws on stone tablets....

No? You disagree?

How do you know? Especially 100%? As god is a concept, and thus individual to each brain, how can god be unchanging and uniform? Unless we each "see" god, how can we know that your god and someone else's god are really the same? We can't fingerprint god or get his DNA.

I guess we could call you to the stand as a expert witness.

Attorney: Brie, do you have actual proof of God?

Brie: I KNOW he exists 100%.

Attorney: My client shows there is 0% actual evidence of a real god existing. How do you explain that?

Brie: Because I am right.

Judge: Baliff, call Belleview...


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I never said I could prove to you that God exists.

Scot: All that stuff about Horace and Jesus has been debunked. If you want I'll send you the link but I am sure you are not interested in the truth.


Scott 6 years ago

You can go ahead and give me a link, I would read it an analyize it, then report back on my findings.

What was the highest level of science course you have taken. The air does not have mass blew my mind.


Austin 6 years ago

Debunked? Are you retarded? The Egyptian religion has been around far longer than Christianity. Christianity has also taken stories from other cultures around modern day Persia as well.

You should really take a History class. I am not a nut who staunchly believes there is no god, however I do believe in the christian version of God. But Religion was created by man to manipulate man. Go take a History class. It certainly does not require faith to think the Big Bang happened. It is a theory and it will likely be vastly different as time progresses.

It's the beauty of science my dear, it's constantly evolving theories to explain what we do not know and theories are subject to change. A lot of your kind seem to disregard the scientific progress or seem to think Science holds all the answers. On a universal scale we know next to nothing, we are only starting to chip away at understanding the universe. However if you were educated and actually went to an actual school besides Jesus camp I'm sure you would understand that.


Austin 6 years ago

I meant to say Process by the way, not sure why I used progress.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I disagree with you utterly, Brie, but thank you for expressing your opinion civilly.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The highest science course I took was a biology course in college and I was a Social Science major and taught secondary Social Science, History, World Government and English.

Chasuk: you have every right to disagree, God has given us all freewill, but you will be responsible for what you do.


Scott 6 years ago

In that biology course did it focus on the human body and chemistry at all? How cells form and operate?


Austin 6 years ago

So, I've been reading more through the comments. Do you seriously believe that good, evil, beauty, and ugly are not subjective? I will put this in the simplest way I can.

I think that Girls with smaller boobs are prettier than girls with bigger boobs. I can promise you there are plenty of other guys who would say otherwise, but beauty is subjective.

I can say that the burger from McDonalds tastes better than the one from burger king, which once again is subjective.

I can say that having sex with a 13 year old girl when you are 45 is not wrong, that's subjective as well.

I can go on and on with this until I suffer from carpal tunnel.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Scott: Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/user/nowheretorun1984#p/u/4/CyKLwUTaRrA

This is 1 of 12 but you can see all 12

Austin: You can say all you want but that doesn't make it true.


Austin 6 years ago

What is that supposed to mean? Are you really that dumb? You're joking right? You seriously believe things like good, evil and beauty are not Subjective? Am I reading this correctly? Even after you supposedly have taken social science classes which should have studied other cultures.

I am in shock and awe that anyone could have their head buried that far into the sand that is the bible.


Winston 6 years ago

"I disagree with you utterly, Brie, but thank you for expressing your opinion civilly."

Yes, absolutists are always "civil" as long as you are not directly challenging their beliefs. As soon as you point out that the word-concept god is logically no different than saying an invisible flying polka-dot dragon with a lightning-jagged yellow tail then the tone becomes much less "civil.

"...I KNOW God exists with 100% certainty. You both will find out that He exists one day, I hope sooner more than later."

If that isn't a veiled expression of a wish for early demise, I am an invisible flying dragon myself - a civil invisible flying dragon, of course.


Austin 6 years ago

Also, on another note, doesn't the bible say it's okay to commit rape? Which is considered immoral and wrong in our society. But if the Bible says it's okay then I guess it's fine. I don't know how would you feel about it, The bible says it's okay, so it must be, since the Bible was written by god.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

No, the Bible doesn't say that it is ok to commit rape, why don't you read it you might learn something.


Austin 6 years ago

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Maybe condoning wasn't quite the right word. But obviously the Bible does say that Women are objects, or property rather. If you're a good christian then why does your christian husband let you do anything besides menial house work?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You do not understand the context of this text, God was protecting the woman because in that day she would have been shunned.

I wish I had a Christian husband who would let me just cook and clean, I would be very happy!


Scott 6 years ago

You could most likely get a husband if you lowered your standards a bit and didn't shun a guy because he likes stuffed animals or is tall.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have my limits! Besides I am a romantic and believe in love so if it happens great if not, this life will be over soon.


Winston 6 years ago

"The "order" is within the nature of God and was there before we existed in Him."

So how did we find out about this "orderly" nature of God? Wasn't it man himself who defined God through writing about him? God didn't pen an autobiography, did he? I am fairly confident he didn't write, I Am Sam. If not, then what "authority" described this "order" of which you speak of so mysteriously? Truth is that this "orderly nature" is nothing more than an attribute created BY THE MIND OF MAN to describe a concept called g-o-d. Man creates attributes of god then proves god because he has those attributes. Total circular logic.

You are stating your conclusion in your premise. Epic failure of logic.


Austin 6 years ago

Well hold on a second, if god was protecting the Girl then why didn't he just make society like it is today, were women have rights and the punishment for rape is prison. Why didn't he make it like is today instead of having that crude system for hundreds of years?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

He did, it's called THE BIBLE and he told us what His name is "I AM". He inspired the men of the Bible to write it.

I don't know why he had that system, when you die you can ask Him but somehow I think that you'll have other questions at that time.


Scott 6 years ago

I understand having standards, but at least have a better reason than what you gave. You are only halfway in, it wont be over too awefully fast. I am sure you could find a person most the way there and they would grow on you.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I hope so.


Austin 6 years ago

I can give you an answer as to why. It is man.

Man, not god has done everything great in our societies. Every step we have taken towards science and improving our society is man and always has been man. People like you would attribute man's greatest achievements to god when it could not be farther from the truth.

Sure, we as Humans are flawed. But we have always progressed forward with innovation and better thinking. The era of blind religion is starting to close and the era of science has recently begun. You are a relic, your religion will die off to some new religion or hopefully die off due to logic and reason. Once our education systems get more productive in the our society, religion is dying. Enjoy having your head stuck in the sand and being left behind like some kind of uneducated moron that belongs in Texas.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Awww you are so foolish and you will find out one day.


Scott 6 years ago

He wont. He will most likely rot in the ground and be broken down over time. Not a terrible fate. It is hard to find out when the spark is gone.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The Bible says that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.


Scott 6 years ago

No one needs to bow to false idols.


Austin 6 years ago

And you are mentally retarded. It's pretty obvious why you aren't in a relationship. No one besides another dumb ass would want to be in a relationship with you. I'm pretty sure the best part of any potential husband of yours day would be when you shut the hell up.


Winston 6 years ago

"He did, it's called THE BIBLE and he told us what His name is "I AM". He inspired the men of the Bible to write it"

And tell us Grand Poobah, why is it that it is ONLY YOUR HOLY BOOK that is accurate and not the Koran or The Book of Mormon or Dell Comics Superman #1?

Why don't you just humbly say I believe this but don't really have a good reason. That's fine. You are entitled to believe any way you want. But this inane "preaching" of absolutely held beliefs because so-and-so authority says so is no different than a Mullah in Iran preaching to his faithful the absolute truth of Islam because his so-and-so said so, and then touching his head to the floor five times a day.

I not-so-gently inferred for you earlier that your beliefs are no different in basis than any other absolutist, from the Mullahs in Iran to the Taliban in Afghanistan to David Koresh at Mount Carmel. You did't seem to grasp what I meant.

Perhaps I need to be more blunt.

If you do not see that absolutism is the real enemy, that dogma is the only real devil, then it is I who pity you.

As soon as you are 100% convinced that you know the ONLY answer, YOU become mankind's worst enemy.


Austin 6 years ago

Winston, you have said all I could have ever hoped to have said.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books which all agree. The Bible is full of prophecies much of which has already happened. The Koran doesn't even make sense and there is no reason to believe it. Other religions are the same, there are either discrepancies, there are no proven prophecies or they are just fabrications with no basis in archeology, history or prophecy.

That is your opinion and since you want to play that game maybe it is you who are 100% convinced that I am wrong and therefore you are the enemy? Since you absolutely don't believe in absolutes!


Scott 6 years ago

Now take that idea of them being wrong. Apply it to your religion. that is what we are all getting at. You have been able to lie to yourself that there are no obvious fabrications and discrepancies.

A common term for this is the bubble of delusion.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Sorry but it's true, if you want to know it's true you can but you must come to God with a sincere heart, maybe someday.


Austin 6 years ago

Only morons believe prophecies.


Scott 6 years ago

No, we have all been there Brie. It makes a lot of sense when you look from the outside. I don't think anyone was strongly against it right off the bat. Winston was apparently a part of the faith for a while. He will have a better responce. There will not be a day when I turn to the Christian faith. I would sooner beleive the Easter Bunny was a diety.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Only people who have no arguments resort to name calling.

All who seek will find, if you do not find it's because you have not sought.


Collin 6 years ago

Why are you deleting comments?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

There is no point to these comments any longer, they are no longer on topic and they are boring me.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have reported you all for harassment.


foreignpress 6 years ago from Denver

Notice the hate. Observe the bitter sarcasm and anger. Do I sense despair? People like Collin, Scott, and Austin are so filled with venom there is no sense of humanity left. And, as befitting the End of Times, people such as these will grow in numbers until they are dominant; beings that exist only as lifeless automatons eager for a supernatural force to feed their empty souls. What a shame. Stand fast, Brie.

"The era of blind religion is starting to close and the era of science has recently begun." That line is classic and absolutely correct. But the multitudes cannot imagine how deadly their "science" will be.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Hello Brie, I like your work and I'll sign on as a fan. I write on atheism and evolutionism a lot. Trolls are common and can be discouraging, stay strong and God Bless.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks spiderpam, I need all the help I can get!


Nikko 6 years ago

After five years of research into cosmology, which carried him to scientific conferences and research centers all over the globe, science writer Dennis Overbye described a conversation with world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking: "In the end what I wanted to know from Hawking is what I have always wanted to know from Hawking: Where we go when we die."

Although tinged with irony, these words reveal much about our age. The queries are not so much on the stars themselves and the theories and conflicting views of the cosmologists that study them. People today still hunger for answers to the basic questions that have haunted mankind for millenniums: Why are we here? Is there a God? Where do we go when we die? Where are the answers to these questions? Are they to be found in the stars?

Another science writer, John Boslough, observed that as people have left religion, scientists such as cosmologists have become "the perfect priesthood for a secular age. They, not religious leaders, were the ones who would now reveal all the secrets of the universe bit by precious bit, not in the guise of spiritual epiphany but in the form of equations obscure to all but the anointed." But will they reveal all the secrets of the universe and answer all the questions that have haunted mankind for ages?

What are the cosmologists revealing now? Most espouse some version of the big bang "theology," which has become the secular religion of our time, even as they quibble incessantly over the details. "Yet," Boslough noted, "in the context of new and contradictory observations, the big bang theory begins to appear more and more like an overly simplistic model in search of a creation event. By the early 1990s the big bang model was . . . increasingly unable to answer the most fundamental questions." He added that "more than a few theorists have expressed the opinion that it would not even last out the 1990s."

Perhaps some of the current cosmological guesswork will turn out to be correct, perhaps not—just as perhaps there really are planets coalescing in the ghostly glow of Orion's nebula, perhaps not. The undeniable fact is that no one on this earth really knows for sure. Theories abound, but honest observers echo Margaret Geller's astute observation that despite the glib talk, something fundamental seems to be missing in science's current understanding of the cosmos.


Nikko 6 years ago

After five years of research into cosmology, which carried him to scientific conferences and research centers all over the globe, science writer Dennis Overbye described a conversation with world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking: "In the end what I wanted to know from Hawking is what I have always wanted to know from Hawking: Where we go when we die."

Although tinged with irony, these words reveal much about our age. The queries are not so much on the stars themselves and the theories and conflicting views of the cosmologists that study them. People today still hunger for answers to the basic questions that have haunted mankind for millenniums: Why are we here? Is there a God? Where do we go when we die? Where are the answers to these questions? Are they to be found in the stars?

Another science writer, John Boslough, observed that as people have left religion, scientists such as cosmologists have become "the perfect priesthood for a secular age. They, not religious leaders, were the ones who would now reveal all the secrets of the universe bit by precious bit, not in the guise of spiritual epiphany but in the form of equations obscure to all but the anointed." But will they reveal all the secrets of the universe and answer all the questions that have haunted mankind for ages?

What are the cosmologists revealing now? Most espouse some version of the big bang "theology," which has become the secular religion of our time, even as they quibble incessantly over the details. "Yet," Boslough noted, "in the context of new and contradictory observations, the big bang theory begins to appear more and more like an overly simplistic model in search of a creation event. By the early 1990s the big bang model was . . . increasingly unable to answer the most fundamental questions." He added that "more than a few theorists have expressed the opinion that it would not even last out the 1990s."

Perhaps some of the current cosmological guesswork will turn out to be correct, perhaps not—just as perhaps there really are planets coalescing in the ghostly glow of Orion's nebula, perhaps not. The undeniable fact is that no one on this earth really knows for sure. Theories abound, but honest observers echo Margaret Geller's astute observation that despite the glib talk, something fundamental seems to be missing in science's current understanding of the cosmos.

Has Anybody Seen My Missing Mass?

The Andromeda galaxy, like all spiral galaxies, rotates majestically in space as if it were a giant hurricane. Astronomers can calculate the rate of rotation for many galaxies from the light spectra, and when they do, they discover something puzzling. The rotation rates seem to be impossible! All spiral galaxies seem to rotate too fast. They behave as if the visible stars of the galaxy were embedded in a much larger halo of dark matter, invisible to the telescope. "We do not know the forms of the dark matter," admits astronomer James Kaler. Cosmologists estimate that 90 percent of the missing mass is unaccounted for. They are frantic to find it, either in the form of massive neutrinos or some unknown but superabundant type of matter.

If you locate the missing mass, be sure to let your local cosmologist know right away!


Nikko 6 years ago

Has Anybody Seen My Missing Mass?

The Andromeda galaxy, like all spiral galaxies, rotates majestically in space as if it were a giant hurricane. Astronomers can calculate the rate of rotation for many galaxies from the light spectra, and when they do, they discover something puzzling. The rotation rates seem to be impossible! All spiral galaxies seem to rotate too fast. They behave as if the visible stars of the galaxy were embedded in a much larger halo of dark matter, invisible to the telescope. "We do not know the forms of the dark matter," admits astronomer James Kaler. Cosmologists estimate that 90 percent of the missing mass is unaccounted for. They are frantic to find it, either in the form of massive neutrinos or some unknown but superabundant type of matter.

If you locate the missing mass, be sure to let your local cosmologist know right away!

A Listing of Some of the Physical Constants Necessary for Life to Exist

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.—The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7.


foreignpress 6 years ago from Denver

Yes, of course. We are human. We are the center of the universe. The same erratic flaw that felled Adam and Eve dogs us to this day. We must know everything musn't we? We must have the answers found in the Tree of Knowledge. Trouble is, this nonsensical quest for the ultimate will also be our downfall. How pompous we are -- bantering back and forth with our specious arguments and inane sophisms. Or, as in the above posts, resorting to slander and vicious personal attacks that border on the demonic. It's too bad this world couldn't be split in half: One half could live in ignorance but have eternal bliss; the other half of the planet could spend a lifetime debating with snakes and biting apples.


Winston 6 years ago

This may get a little esoteric, but you will probably delete it, anyway.

"There are really only two possibilities either God exists or he doesn't...Quite simple really."

Well, not exactly. You are formatting a proposition based on an axiom of classical logic, the Law of Excluded Middle(P or not-P). Axioms of themselves are neither true nor false - they are only assumed to be true as a foundation for their respective systems of logic. Therefore, your statement that only two possibilities exist is not really true, but only axiomatically (i.e., logically) valid. It does nothing to prove existence, which is a condition of the physical universe and not a condition of thought (logic).

"Either God exists or he doesn't, both conclusions require faith."

You are correct that according to the axiom either X exists or X does not exist - but because you are dealing only with axioms of logic (thoughts), any concept can be put into the "X" slot and the proposition would still be axiomatically valid. Invisible spiders exist or they do not exist is as valid of statement as God exists or does not exist. Neither statement has any bearing on the actuality of God or invisible spiders - and no amount of faith changes the reality of whether or not invisible spiders exist or do not exist. Your statement that both concepts require faith is incorrect. You are making a logical argument, and therefore you need to prove your proposition and show that either god exists or god does not exist. It does not follow from your proposition or from the axiom that both require faith. That is simply your unproven assertion of what you believe. Truly, your argument is the opposite. If God exists there is no need to believe it (I don't have to believe the moon orbits the earth), and if God doesn't exist it is not necessary to believe it but simply to acknowledge reality (earth's second moon, which some people believe in, is not really there no matter what they say).

"The question is which one requires reasonable faith and which one requires blind faith?"

You create a false dilemma. The question should be: which idea is subjective and based solely on faith and which is a recognized objective reality based on lack of empirical data?

If you value your faith, I strongly suggest not going down this road of attempting to find or state a logical or reasonable basis for your beliefs - the only way to hold onto unreasonable beliefs is keep them in the dark and not subject them to the light of reason.

When I became a man, I put away childish things - like believing in invisble creatures.


Den Dover 6 years ago

Throughout the planet people throughout history have made up religion. It is completely 100% fiction. Good business model though, this Catholic church pyramid scheme, huh? The insurance industry and then MLMs the like of Amway have followed it with much sucess. What a great product to sell - eternal happiness as a reward for following a made up list of rules! When you're dead, you're dead. That's what dead means - dead! Nice to live forever, but probably just a fantasy. So don't waste Sunday mornings in church when you can be out living!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I am a hater of religion as well, so was Jesus Christ, I am talking about the truth and reality here...when you die, your soul lives.


Winston 6 years ago

"I am talking about the truth and reality here...when you die, your soul lives."

And this was taught to you by an authority, a pastor, a church, or you got it from the bible - all are the same, an authority to pass along the teaching.

And how did the ancient civilizations know about this truth, before your particular bible was written or your pastor was born?

Don't you understand that all you really have is the say-so of some authority whom you believe to be genuine or the say-so of some old writing which you believe to be inspired by god?

You have no truth or reality - you only have your belief. And there is no reason to accept your beliefs as superior to anyone else's beliefs unless you can create a sound argument for your beliefs and produce a refutation of other beliefs.

If you can't do that, all you are doing is standing on the corner and saying, "Am so" to everyone else's "Are not".


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have my own personal experiences with God and we have creation and we have the written Word of God. God said he has put eternity into every man's heart, but some want to stay in darkness because their deeds are evil.


Scott 6 years ago

Are you calling poor Winston evil? Something interesting from the federal bureau of prisons. This is a sample, many other samples reflect the result.

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

Athiests/Agnostic make up about 15% of the US population. Chistians make up about 76%. As you can see, the Christians are well represented in prison when there are not that many athiests.

What I am trying to represent is that going to prison is typically seen as doing something "evil."


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

How many of those people became Christian after entering prison? You can't go by something like that when there are so many unknown variable...geez and I thought you had a brain!


Winston 6 years ago

I am not trying to put down your beliefs. I am, however, rejecting the argument you made in this hub and showing you the basis for all your beliefs is simply a belief in authority. Anytime you appeal to the word of god, to god, or to personal god experiences you are making the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. There is no reasoning in what you claim, only belief and an appeal to authority.

I don't care what you believe - but don't try to confuse belief with rationality or imply that non-reliance on faith is somehow irrational unless you can back it up with a reasoned argument. So far your argument fails. Let me show you what I mean.

"I have my own personal experiences with God" - then you claim to be an authority. Why should Chung Hau in China, who has never heard of you, accept your word about eternal truths concerning him due to these personal experiences of yours - unless you claim some kind of authority or knowledge of authority?

"and we have creation" - Non-proven assertion. You first must prove creation before you can make a statement about creation. Otherwise, creation=your religion and is not logic.

"and we have the written Word of God." - appeal to authority. It's like saying "An article in Time Magazine said yada, yada, yadi."

"God said" - appeal to authority.

That is all Christianity is: an authoritarian set of rules believed to have been sent by god.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well, I do believe that faith has something to do with it and I'm not saying it doesn't, but the point of my article was that it takes more faith to believe in No God, than it does to believe in God. Your authority are your books and teachers, mine is the Word of God and God himself.


Winston 6 years ago

You basically said, "(My authority) is the Word of God and God himself."

I agree with you. I am glad you understand what I have been trying to explain. Your belief is based completely and totally on faith in authority (god and word of god). Your belief is therefore not a product of any reasoning process whatsoever - you are not required to think rationally, ask questions, or even think for yourself in any manner - all you have to do is blindly accept what someone else says is true, without proof or reason.

Usually, that type of reaching out blindly for any lifeline is an act of desperation. I won't say that is so of you, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

I fail to see how your argument about atheist belief holds up in light of your actually position - a Christian simply believes what he or she is told.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You obviously don't understand me, so I see no point in going forward.


Winston 6 years ago

That's all right, Brie. I won't pester you any more. You have already collapsed into the inevitable theist failing of the fallacious appeal to authority as your last resort to debunk genuine reasoning skills.

Your whole argument has decayed into saying if god exists it would say so in the bible, and because it says so in the bible god exists. Somewhat circular don't you think? LoL.

You seem bright enough - but like most ardent theists I come across you have a blind spot when it comes to rationally judging your own logic. Perhaps you would enjoy looking into the reasoning process some day. And remember, just because you believe it doesn't make it logically valid.

Best and good luck.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

No, although the Bible is a witness it is 66 books and therefore not circular reasoning, but the reason God exists is because we exist (since we didn't just pop into being) and that's that.

That's true, "just because you believe it doesn't make it true" you should take your own advice.


spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA


Ed. 6 years ago

The only alternative to God existing, Atheism, is that something was created out of nothing. That something could be the rudimentary elements that made up the Big Bang or it could be the entire universe lock stock and barrel, take your pick it, really doesn't matter. The fact is that if you don't believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, if you are an atheist, then you are forced to conclude that something just popped into being out of nothing, an illogical, unreasonable conclusion.

The problem with your argument is that; where did your god came from? Looks as if it came from the same place as the big bang did. So we are even. Stop spewing myth.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

No Ed: God always was and always will be, He is the cause to our effect.


Winston 6 years ago

I stopped but you continued. Game on.

Quote, "No, although the Bible is a witness it is 66 books and therefore not circular reasoning."

After this idiocy I have to take back what I said about you seeming bright. You are now just spouting gibberish. You haven't the foggiest what circular logic means.


Winston 6 years ago

If you are trying to argue this stuff, you should really have some basic knowledge.

Circular reasoning:

"A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: 'God exists.' 'How do you know that God exists?' 'The Bible says so.' 'Why should I believe the Bible?' 'Because it's the inspired word of God.'"

The reason it is a bad argument is NOT because it has to do with God, but because of its construction.

The reason it is called circular reasoning is because in goes in a neverending circle that demonstrates nothing.

Step 1: God exists

Step 2: God exists because the bible says so.

Step 3: The bible is the word of God

Step 4: Therefore God exists

Rinse, wash, repeat...ad infinintum....


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Umm, I used the argument that because we exist, He exists.

I also said that the Word of God explains God, because of the prophecies that have been predicted. There is no other explanation for all the prophecies other than divine inspiration.


ello hello 6 years ago

Ed, Winston and Scott, seem to be the same person and they sound just like fatfist.


Scott 6 years ago

Winston has a completely different writing style from me. You are correct, God exsists only in people.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Who is fatfist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

(Ed, Winston and Scott, seem to be the same person and they sound just like fatfist.)

Hi spiderpam, aka "ello hello",

Remember what I told you in my hub:

http://hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-The

Here it is again in case you just skimmed over it:

1) Ask the HP staff to investigate whether Winston & fatfist are the same ip address, and ask them to PERMANETLY block BOTH accounts if that is the case. Like I said, I will NEVER report your sock accounts: “spiderpam” and “ello hello”.....because I AM an honest & sincere rational human!

2) Since you are a Christian apologist, please use your contacts to find the BEST Apologists on the planet, and ask them to come here and refute ANY of my hubs! This is my personal challenge to you. Are you up for it?

3) If you can find anybody to PROVE ONE, JUST ONE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH.....I will PayPal you $5000. I am a person of my word, spiderpam.... the people who know me say that “integrity” is my middle name.

4) If you can find anybody that can RATIONALLY EXPLAIN A SINGLE NATURAL PHENOMENON USING EITHER THE GOD OR JESUS CONCEPTS, I will PayPal you another $5000.

I hope that you can read, spiderpam....cause this is the 4th time now that I've posted this to you!

The search feature is quite handy at finding all the places you are posting this nonsense, spiderpam!

Jesus is NOT happy with you right now. I hope there isn't a Hell, for YOUR sake, spiderpam!

Sorry to interfere in your discussions, Brie Hoffman, but it appears that we have a little disgruntled troll named "spiderpam" aka "ello hello", who had ALL her arguments clobbered at my hub.

My apologies again, Brie.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks fatfist, I am tired of them anyway since they say the same things over and over so I will just delete them. But thanks for the advice.


maplethorpej profile image

maplethorpej 6 years ago from Minneapolis, Minn.

AWESOME Post!! I love the logic.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks so much, I hope you took the poll and rated it, as you can see I have a lot of detractors on this particular hub!


Winston 6 years ago

Maplethorpe,

You may want to reign in the praise for the logic - there isn't any real logic presented.

The author used The Law of Excluded Middle to present the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exist. That is O.K. as far as it adheres to an axiom of classical logic, but it falls short in that "exists" is not defined. What does exist mean?

I can tell you what it means - it means something holds a position and an area in the universe. In other words, it is a physical object that can be measured as to L,W,H. If you want to use a different definition, it is up to the author to define the word. We have no such definition presented. Not good. Common language does not translate into precise thinking arguments - we have to know what the arguer is trying to prove or disprove. Exists is such a word.

After that, we get to what was trying to be an argument that fell woefully short. Because I exist God exists, I see order, and nothing can come from nothing so therefore God must exist.

This is nothing but an assertion based on no evidence of creation - and with no definition applied to the word creation.

The Big Bang is not fact. Creation is not fact. Both are non-proven assumptions - acutally, the way they are used by the author makes them both appeals to common understanding, which is a fallacy of logic of itself.

This entire argument is as logical as if I proposed that an invisible twelve-inch gay midget in high heels and a pink tutu created the universe, and my own existence, the fact that I perceive order in that universe, and the idea that nothing can come from nothing all provide evidence that proves my case.

Welcome to the Church of the Invisisble 12-inch Gay Midget

(Donations accepted)

I will now let you in on the big secret - you cannot prove existence with logic. Existence requires no proof. It is factual - it either exists or it doesn't and no argument makes a difference. You cannot argue the sun out of the sky. It requires no argument for the moon to orbit the earth.

Classical Logic is the search for reasoned truth by way of precise thinking - it is "of the mind" - therefore, all of its proofs are "of the mind". Its proofs or truths are only logical necessities based upon the system of logic that is used. Logic deals with concepts - not atuality.

And now you know the rest of the story.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Existence as defined on dictionary.com:

ex·ist·ence? ?/?g?z?st?ns/ Show Spelled[ig-zis-tuhns] Show IPA

–noun

1. the state or fact of existing; being.

2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.

3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.

4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.

5. something that exists; entity; being.

The state of being...not your definition!


Winston 6 years ago

Great! We will take your number 1 definition: "1. the state or fact of existing; being."

The normal theist pleas to authority - this time a dictionary which gives us the incredibly stupid circular definition of: existence, the state of existing.

Gee, thanks. Me, the state of being me. Well, Duh!

Then it says: being. What kind of being. Invisible? Short? Gay? Creator of all tutus?

I say by your definition that an invisible 12-inch tall gay midget wearing a pink tutu created the universe and all that is in it. He is a being so he exists. And because he exists he exhibits existence.

That is your argument. How does it sound now?

Now all you have to do is prove by your definition that an invisible 12-inch gay midget who likes pink and wears tutus does not exist.

The problem of your definition is that it allows any imaginary creature to be defined as "being". All we have to do is believe they it or he or she exists.

Now do you not see how ridiculous it is to use common language defintions? Perhaps you would care to try again using a valid definition that has precise parameters?


Winston 6 years ago

Better yet, why don't you simply admit that your belief is simply opinion, based not on any logic but based entirely on authority. Then I recommend you stop bashing people who don't accept your belief system or your authority:

"Atheism, the belief that there is no God, fits that definition perfectly since there is no evidence for the universe just popping into being. The Bible says that it is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God, I concur."

Remove the log from your own eye first, neighbor, before you start calling others fools.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Uno if it was good enough for God to call all "Atheists" fools, it's good enough for me! You can stop being one any time you like.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Please don't put outside URLs on my hub.


Nikko 6 years ago

Hmmmmm,seems like i will have to jump back into this some more.Stay tuned


peach7fuzz profile image

peach7fuzz 6 years ago

That's good. There is certainly definite proof that God is real. Look around you. The greatest scientist that ever lived created what is around us! It's crazy awesome!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen peach7fuzz!


Winston 6 years ago

Mr Miyagi understood religion: "No such thing as bad student. Only bad teacher. Teacher say. Student do."

Yes, the basis of all religion is.....authority.

For all of you who believe that the bible is the absolute word of god and infallible, let me ask you a real simple question: How many animals did Noah take onto the ark, two or seven?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Two of some seven of others, who knows the total.


Winston 6 years ago

The point of the number of animals taken on board is to show that the bible is not a literal collection of absolute truths from God. The bible is a compilation of legends - the fact that the Noah story has two completely different orders from God shows that there were at least two different versions of the story (legends from seperate tribes) that were woven together to create the book of Genesis.

Genesis 6:20

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

You cannot have it both ways. In one account only two of every creature were taken on board, while in a totally seperate account 7 clean beasts were added to the story. To be consistent, there can only be one story - so which was it, 2 or 7?

For a believer, it shouldn't matter how many animals were ordered to be taken as the point of the bible is not to be the absolute word of God but to teach moral lessons handed down by ancient religious tribes. If you want to believe those stories were inspired by God that is your right. But it is just as likely they were simply spawned by the mind of ancient man attempting to explain mysteries of the physical world that were unfathomable to those ancient men and women.

Once you understand that the old testament of the bible is simply a collection of tribal legends, its impact as the literal word of God is reduced to ashes, and its ability to rule lives by its authority becomes as unconvinceing as a Mad Magazine or a Dell Comic Book.

And don't think that the New Testament is without contradiction - times and locations of miracles vary between different authors. For an absolute word of God, it would be more convincing if all the facts matched - but they don't.

It is still O.K. to believe. I am not trying to convince anyone to not believe - that is a personal choice. I am trying to show that it is not foolish to reject that belief, that, in fact, it is downright rational to do just that.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You have the brain of a pea! Some were brought in by two's and some (different animals, clean vs unclean) were brought in by sevens!

You're prejudice is showing big time!

No Contradictions!

(Genesis 7:2) Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

(Genesis 7:3) Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Nikko,

(Astronomers can calculate the rate of rotation for many galaxies from the light spectra....The rotation rates seem to be impossible!)

This issue stems from one of the tenets of the Religion known as Mathematical Physics, which has deemed light to be a ‘wavicle’ (wave + particle). This is an irrational hypothesis. They treat light as a ‘wave’ in order to use the Doppler Effect calculations, like they do with sound. Then at the Quantum level they treat it as a 0D point-particle. Both of these idiocies are irreconcilable with the nature of light.

There is no such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ wave, and there is no such ‘thing’ as a 0D particle in the universe. Hence the invention of the Dark Matter/Energy nonsense to patch up their irrational theory about the Redshift of galaxies. And this is why they misinterpreted data to irrationally conclude that the universe is expanding from a Big Bang self-creation.

The Big Bang, like all forms of ‘creation’, has to do with Religion, not with Science. The Big Bang was the idea of a Catholic priest, Lemaintre, who finally found a way to reconcile theological creation with authoritative names like, Hubble, Einstein, Godel, and others, who refused to accept the BB, but later gave in due to peer pressure. Big Bang, singularities, and black holes, violate Einstein’s Relativity.

(The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite....)

There are NO such discrete ‘particles’ called electrons, protons, or neutrons in the universe. Such idiocy stems from Bohr’s thoroughly debunked orbital model of the atom. And ‘charge’ is a concept. You will not find any little ‘balls’ in the universe that you can label with ‘+’ and ‘-‘.

(if the strong force were a little weaker...)

There is NO such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ or ‘the’ force. The word ‘force’ is a VERB – to force! You cannot put ‘a’ or ‘the’ before a verb and treat it like an object.

It is pure nonsense and totally unscientific. Only objects in MOTION and in physical CONTACT can mediate an event we call ‘force’.

Consequently, there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ strong or ‘a’ weak force. Such notions are total gibberish and anybody using such language has no clue what they are talking about, and they certainly are no scientist.

(the sun could not generate energy...)

Again, very unscientific! There is no such ‘thing’ as energy. Energy is a concept.

(had space been less than three dimensions....)

Space is ‘nothing’, it is not an object. Consequently, it is irrational to say that space ‘has’ dimensions. Dimensions have to do with architecture only.

Indeed, space has the opposite properties that objects have. Space 'is' perfectly transparent, intangible, frictionless, dimensionless, unmovable, colorless, temperature-less, etc. Space is neither small nor large nor wide nor tall. It cannot move nor be occupied (e.g., like a fish occupies an ocean: by displacing water molecules).

In physics, we use adjectives (such as continuous) to modify objects. We use the opposites of these adjectives to characterize space (e.g., discontinuous, transparent, intangible, dimensionless). Adjectives are solely circumscribed to objects and are not applicable to space. Certainly, space cannot be black, white, big, flat, expanding, warping, or three-dimensional.

It is impossible for anything in the universe to possess less than 3, or more than 3 dimensions. Anything < 3D or > 3D is purely conceptual – invented by a human mind.

So to use such irrational pseudo-scientific nonsense to claim that a ‘creator’ made it all happen, is not only laughable, but your are inventing another religion by marrying mathematical physics with traditional religion. It’s total garbage talk.

It is best to just stick with what the Bible says, and claim that you have faith in God. When you start to justify your faith with pseudo-science, you are inventing a totally NEW Religion, which often goes by the name: Apologetics.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@Fatfist: Your most recent comment (the one containing the words "Religion known as Mathematical Physics") is fascinating.

I'd like to learn more about this worldview. Would you kindly make a few reading recommendations?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Chasuk,

(I'd like to learn more about this worldview. Would you kindly make a few reading recommendations?)

Oh that's easy....go do some reading on the following religious nonsense that is parroted by the establishment:

big bang, black holes, light wave, particle wave, gravity wave, wavicle, time, mass, energy, force, field, charge, electrons, protons, neutrons, warped space, spacetime, 0D particle, black hole, singularity, dark matter, dark energy, Quantum Mechanics, gravitons, wave function collapse, photons, phonons, tachyons, chronons, solitons, muons, pions, Higgs, neutrinos, 1D strings, etc.

And pay close attention to the following:

1. dilation (physical stretching) of the concept time, which is nothing

2. warpage (physical bending) of space, which is nothing

3. the concept black hole swallows matter from a neighboring star, and swallows clocks, astronauts and their iPods.

4. 0D quantum particle carries on its back the concept force

5. transfer of the concept energy

Mother Nature must be going nuts trying to understand all the idiotic concepts that the idiot ape brains of Math have invented. She must truly wonder whether her favorite creature is actually any more intelligent than a snail.

Anyway, I recently had a discussion on black holes with a PhD physicist who decided to delete my comments when I showed her that she had no clue about physics. You can read the exchange in my hub on black holes.

You are welcome to discuss any of these math-physics issues in my hub. Unlike people who have a worldview to protect, I never censor anyone.


Winston 6 years ago

"Some were brought in by two's and some (different animals, clean vs unclean) were brought in by sevens!"

No matter how hard you try, you cannot make a one-event composite from two seperate narratives (Genesis 6 and Genesis 7) that each give seperate and conflicting accounts of the orders given to the mythical Noah.

In the first account, 2 of every creature were to be taken. In the second account, which is not a clarification of the first but a seperate account, 2 and 7 were to be taken.

You quote Genesis 7 but pretend Genesis 6 isn't there. Why is that? Because it doesn't match? Well, Duh!

The bible has many such contradictions, some explained and some not. Only unthinking, obedient servitude to authority and dogma keeps one blind to the reality of the bible - it is a compilation of oral legends.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

No, YOU do not want to see what is plainly there! One day you will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, I hope that it will be before you die. There is no reason why Ch. 7 can't be a clarification of 6 because they don't contradict but are a further detailed instructions. You just don't want to accept it.


Scott 6 years ago

Alright, here is a long relevant post.

...there was void, or chaos, or nothing, or everything and nothing, or darkness, or a sky world, or heaven, or heaven and earth together, or heaven and water together, or six heavens and six hells, or a supreme formless Entity, or several Entities, or some combination thereof with various modifications.

In this primordial Initial State, either Allah, Jehovah, Purusha, Brahma, Manitou, Chaos, a Spirit, the "King Above the Sky," the "Holy Supreme Wind," the Dreamtime gods, a supreme formless Entity and the Archetypal Man, the Goddess, a small bearded man or some other divine, or supernatural, or superhuman, or extra-human being (or beings) or elemental essence or concept that I might have overlooked...

...either dreamed, spoke, caused, made, planted seeds, gave birth, brought forth, formed, sacrificed itself, was sacrificed by others, or some other such action or series of events that eventually resulted in the creation of the universe as we know it.

Whew!

Later, in some cases, either Athena, Chimalman, Hera, Hertha, Isis, Juno, Mary, Ostara, Shin-Moo, Sochiquetzal, or some other virgin mother whose name is lost to us (or whom I may have overlooked), may, or may not have, given birth to other gods or god-men like....

...Krishna, Serapis, Mars/Ares, Buddha, Dionysus/Bacchus, Jesus, Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules"), Bali, Hesus, Odin, Prometheus, or dozens or more others I missed, many of whom were either crucified or executed in sacrifice for mankind.

From there it gets more complicated. In fact, if I were to continue, it may become entirely incomprehensible.

What I attempted to do is combine stories from many of the various beliefs of the past and present. The point is to show how many there are (and these aren't all of them by a long shot).

They can't all be true, so how do I determine which one to believe in? I've been told my "eternal soul" might be at stake and I don't want to bet on the wrong horse, after all. Should I pick whichever one is the oldest? I don't know which one that might be because many were passed down orally for many years before they were written down. The oldest ones might have been lost by now anyway. Should I pick whichever one has the largest number of adherents? I'm not sure that would be right. There have been times in the past when more people believed something different from what they believe today. Christianity has the largest number of adherents now, but that wasn't always the case. Did the truth change at the moment the believers in Christianity exceeded the believers in whatever religion was more popular before it? At some point in the future, if Islam overtakes Christianity in the number of adherents (considering it's growing faster), would that make a difference in whether or not it's true? Also, since the majority of the world's population doesn't believe in Christianity, would that outweigh the fact that it had the largest number of adherents? And what if people stopped believing in it entirely?

Okay, I just sent my Southern Baptist brother an email. I asked him, hypothetically, if in 5,000 years (more or less) no one believed in Christianity anymore, would that mean it was wrong?

He said no.

Although this in no way constitutes a scientific survey by any stretch of the imagination, I suspect this would be the opinion of most believers. But, obviously, there have been many things in the past most people believed that turned out to be wrong, so I can't decide which religion is correct based on its number of adherents.

(I guess that rules out two of my other questions: can I dismiss all the religions no one believes in anymore simply because no one believes them? And, should I choose a religion by picking whichever one was oldest and still has adherents?)

Should I believe in whichever religion is the most recent? Since new religions keep popping up, I would expect to have to change my beliefs every so often. That doesn't seem to be very smart.

What if I picked based on what my parents' believed? Would that make sense? I guess that's no way to tell which one is true for sure. It appears that believing what your parents' believed has resulted in people coming to many different conclusions. I think Einstein was a pretty smart guy...should I choose based on what he believed? I know there have been other very intelligent people that had other beliefs, so I can't go by that. What if I picked based on what most people around me believed so that I won't be shunned or ridiculed? I don't think that would be very courageous or any more likely to result in me choosing correctly.

Should I pick based on which one I like best? Would that be the best way to decide which one is true? I know from experience that the truth about something is not always the most appealing thing I might want to believe. What if I pick one I really like and it turns out to be wrong? I might spend eternity in hell-fire or something.

Maybe I should believe the one that makes the most terrible threats against not believing in it? If I do that at least I'll know I won't suffer the worst fate among all the options... The problem with that is that there are several of them that seem equally bad. Also, what if a new one comes along that threatens nonbelievers with something worse?

What if I just come up with my own? Evidently some people have done it, why not me? But I suppose coming up with my own wouldn't necessarily make it true (no matter how fun it might be).

What if I put a list of all the gods I know down on paper, close my eyes, and ask for guidance before I put my finger down somewhere on the page without looking?

Hold on...

It looks like the old Korean god JoMulJu wins! Believers have always told me to ask for guidance and put my faith in something and I would get an answer. If that is true, JoMulJu is the One True God!

Hmmm...The problem with that is it seems when other people do it they get other responses. Maybe that isn't the best way to do it either.

Are there any of them that seem to have anything special about them, something to recommend them above the others? Hmmm...

Let's see... Several claim that their prophecies have been fulfilled, so I can't go by that. There are many that claim a Son of God figure, death and resurrection, healings, revelations, miracles and such things, so I can't go by that. We have already ruled out judging by whichever one is the oldest, has most adherents, is oldest that still has adherents, is most recent, is most threatening, is most appealing...

What else?

Can I judge based on the effects various religions have on adherents? Maybe that is the something special I could look for? Buddhism might be the least violent, but then there are the Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses. Christians might have the most material wealth overall, but that seems like it might be contrary to their own scriptures. Jews seem to have survived as a people for a long time despite facing some really harsh attacks over the years. Islam seems to be more dynamic lately. It seems there are unique things about each one, but how do I pick which unique thing is more important (or relevant)? And is being unique in some way any more likely to make something true?

Can I eliminate some religions based on how silly or absurd they seem? Some of them seem pretty strange: a god vomiting the sun, a god being impregnated by an obsidian knife, a god placing land on the back of a golden frog, a god making a woman out of a bear, a god making a man out of clay, a god making a woman out of a man's rib. You can find everything from winged horses and virgin births to "stopping" the sun and parting the seas. Actually, most of them are filled with hard-to-believe, miraculous or supernatural claims.

I guess if I had to pick one that seemed the least absurd, Buddhism might come out on top (or maybe some of the ones I didn't cover, like Jainism or the Baha'i Faith). But some may make the argument of fideism: credo quia absurdum, or I believe it because it is absurd. So I might not be able to rule out something just because it seems


Scott 6 years ago

Cont...

absurd.

Can I judge by their holy books? I've read most all of the holy books of the major religions. They all seem to have internal problems for which their adherents have to do tortured and convoluted back-flips to explain. Another problem is that if I pick any one of them, I will find their adherents interpreting the same holy book differently, which leads to different sects within each of the various beliefs.

That compounds my dilemma. Even if I pick one religion out of so many, I'll then need to pick among the different sects. To use just one example, there might be just enough difference between the Baptists' and the Catholics' requirements for salvation that it would significantly affect my fate. And then there are all the different Baptists, and the different individual interpretations even within the same congregation... But I'll not worry about that right now.

Some people claim to have had personal revelations from their god, but you can find people claiming personal revelations in every religion that has adherents. I've had my own epiphany moments, but I've never had some supernatural being bestowing revelations upon me even when I was open to receiving them. The only person I found I was talking to when I prayed as a kid was myself. Even if I did have some god come down and talk to me, how could I distinguish it from some mental delusion (or some powerful posing demon, leading me astray)?

So how do I pick? If I want to bet that one of these is correct, if I want to bet that there is some absurd or supernatural explanation (rather than a natural one that we don't yet understand), how do I decide?

See, it isn't a 50/50 chance here. It isn't like I can just bet there is a God rather than bet there isn't in order to cover my ass (Pascal's Wager); I've got to decide which supernatural explanation of the various religions is the correct one, and I've got to consider the possibility that there is a correct supernatural explanation that no one has conceived of yet--or that there could be some correct supernatural explanations that might never be conceived.

I know there will be some believers that read this and think they have some convincing reason for their belief that I didn't cover. I've been studying this most of my life and I haven't seen or heard a convincing one yet. There is nothing they can say about which I haven't heard something similar regarding another religion. If there is something they think is unique about their religion, then believers of other religions have some other unique thing they can say about their religion as well.

"True" believers of any of these religions should try to talk to the "true" believers of some of the other religions. If they spend some time listening to the other believer's argument, I'm sure they will find things that will seem absurd to them, things that don't make sense, and things that appear outrageous. That is how they all sound to me. If they can understand why it is they don't buy what a "true" believer of another religion is saying, they will begin to understand why I'm not buying what they are saying.

I'm sitting here in a kind of default position, not actively believing in any of these religions--just like a newborn baby. I've been told I should take a "leap of faith" in one direction or another into belief, but how do I decide which way to leap? It seems to me that leaping in the wrong direction might be worse than not leaping at all.

I don't actively have to do anything not to believe something, I don't have to believe one thing to not to have a belief in something else, and I don't even have to know with absolute metaphysical certainty if something is true (or not true) not to believe it.

What would cause me to take such a leap into belief?

I would have to be provided some compelling reason, and, as Carl Sagan supposedly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Until and unless someone or something provides me with that evidence, I see no reason to move from my default position.

I don't have to prove that all these beliefs (and the gods that go with them) aren't true. If people ask me why I don't believe in God, I have a right to ask them which one they are talking about. Since some people have a different idea about what they mean by "God" (eg: Nature, a "force" as opposed to a being, "All That Is," etc.), I think I have a right to ask them to define what they mean so I will know what they are asking me. If they don't want to define what they mean, then how can I know what they are talking about? I don't possess any mind-reading abilities.

If they can describe what they mean, then I might be able to answer them. If they can't, then the best answer I can give is that I've not seen any compelling reason or evidence that would motivate me to take that "leap of faith" into belief in any one of these many supernatural options.

On the most basic level, theism is "a belief in a god or gods;" a-theism is "without a belief in a god or gods."

I guess that makes me an atheist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago

Scott,

(as Carl Sagan supposedly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Until and unless someone or something provides me with that evidence...)

It was quite interesting to read the positions that you have been considering.

But if you are looking for "evidence", there is TONS of it. Every religion has evidence, eyewitness reports, proofs, historical data, knowledge, authorities, etc.

Now the problem with "evidence", and especially with Carl Sagan's irrational statement, is that evidence is subjective. Evidence necessarily depends upon the extremely limited capacity of the human sensory system. After all, it is humans who DECIDE what is "evident" enough to be labeled as "evidence".

Surely, by evidence alone, or going by Carl Sagan's nonsense...gravity cannot possibly exist. I mean, we cannot sense gravity in any way. And we definitely have no physical evidence for gravity. Hence we come to the irrational conclusion that there is no physical gravity.

Sure, we can see a ball fall to the floor, and only because we have "memory". We were able to remember the previous "locations" of the ball. This has nothing to do with "evidence" or "proof". What about the blind person who cannot see the ball? Or what about the 3 month unborn baby? Does gravity not exist for them because they cannot "see" a ball in motion?

You see, gravity is something that we infer at the conceptual level. We infer that there must be a physical mediator that pulls the ball to the floor. And this has nothing to do with evidence or proof. Instead, this has everything to do with a "rational explanation". We can come up with a rational explanation as to nature's physical mechanism that pulls the ball to the floor.

So really, if you are looking for evidence, there is tons of it. But this is not what is bothering you. You are bothered because this is not the evidence that suits YOUR particular tastes. But it does suit the tastes of billions of other people, as you very well know. They are quite content with this evidence as proof!

But if I were you, I would instead start looking for rational explanations. Can the "creation" of the universe be rationally explained? What does the word "creation" even mean? This would be a good starting point to help you decide if any religion can deliver what they promise. I would leave evidence for religions to quibble over. Atheists and theists have been arguing over God for 2000 years. They ask for more evidence and proof either "for" or "against" Gods existence. And they will continue to argue until the human species goes extinct. And what will they have learned in the process? Absolutely nothing!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You should pick the one that is true and conforms to reality. God said if you seek me with all your heart I will allow you to find me. If you are just playing games with your soul then you are playing games with your life.


Winston 6 years ago

The word of god according to the tribe of 2-by-2ers:

Genesis 6:22 "Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did."

The word of god according to the 7-by-2ers:

Genesis 7:5 "And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him."

Only a total imbecile would not notice that these two narrative accounts of the flood and Noah's actions end the same way with Noah doing everything he was told to do.

In Chapter 6, he was told to gather 2 of every creature; and then we are told Noah did this. When the same story is repeated in Chapter 7, Noah is told to bring 7 clean and 2 unclean. If he had already gathered 2 of every creature, it was not it necessary to repeat the gather 2 order in Chapter 7. Yet, there it is.

Two burning questions:

1) Which chapter of the two non-fallable words of god is the accurate chapter?

2) Did god make a mistake in Chapter 6 when he said bring only 2 of every creature, or did the narrative writer make a mistake?

Which of these two conflicting absolute truths is the real deal absolute truth, two or seven? Inquiring minds want to know.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The latter chapter is a detail of the former. It's just that simple, however people like you who choose to wrestle against God will wrestle to their own destruction.


Winston 6 years ago

"people like you who choose to wrestle against God"

As God is only a human concept, it is impossible to have a real wrestling match, although I suppose we could have a proxy match by wrestling with ideas.


Scott 6 years ago

Evidence for God would be simple, something that wasn't written by a man. Something physical. Gravity cannot be explained fully, but it can be observed. You cannot argue religion based on scientific ignorance.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It is simple, it's all around you in creation.


Terree 6 years ago

All boils down to Free Will, those that believe truly understand this, as God spirit to yours..he request that you "Seek knowledge", honor thy neighbor.


PhoenixV profile image

PhoenixV 6 years ago from USA

I believe that the Creator of Reality is "existing".

Things exist, mostly as energy that comes and goes.

My energy probably wans't around billions of years ago will max entropy billions of years in the future.

I cant prove that my awareness is nothing more than feedback of an electrochemical deterministic machine creating an illusion of "self existence" even if I didn't come n go every billions of years or so.

God does more than exist. Exist is for amateurs with a heckuva lotta faith.

Excellent hub!


Scott 6 years ago

So your only argument left is that you can't explain how things came to be, so you take a leap of faith to a God. You are a sad and unimaginative person.


PhoenixV profile image

PhoenixV 6 years ago from USA

God, as a cosmological model is a reasonable,logical,rational conclusion. No need for faith.

And your response is petty and lacks any argument


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator exists...it's a bigger leap of faith to say that is not so.


oceansnsunsets profile image

oceansnsunsets 6 years ago from The Midwest, USA

Great Hub Brie, thanks for sharing


PhoenixV profile image

PhoenixV 6 years ago from USA

Good evening Ms Hoffman I hope that you dont mind that I comment here ?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks oceansnsunsets...go ahead PhoenixV


PhoenixV profile image

PhoenixV 6 years ago from USA

Thanks and once again excellent hub


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks PhoenixV, I hope you rated it and participated in the poll.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@Brie: You write, "It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator exists."

I agree, sort of. Yes, if a "creation" exists, then a creator necessarily exists.

But doesn't that assume that the universe exists as an artifact, i.e, as the product of creation?

What of those people who believe that the universe has always existed? That isn't as unreasonable a belief as it sounds. After all, you apparently believe that God has always existed. If God can have existed forever, why not the universe? Either belief is a leap of faith.


oceansnsunsets profile image

oceansnsunsets 6 years ago from The Midwest, USA

We need to look at the reasons that people think the universe has always existed, over why many others think that it did in fact come into being at one point. I don't think it is just about belief, that the universe came into being. Its logical and scientific, so there are good reasons to wonder about the cause of that event. At the very least, the cause has to be as great, but likely even greater than the effect we see. Such intricate information is now here, and we with our own intelligence cannot even begin to duplicate it. (though they try and try to) The more we find out in science, the more we find that its even more information than previously thought. We don't observe this occurring with the greatest of human intelligence today. Yet some want to believe so hard, that it makes sense that it could happen when there was "nothing" and no intelligence.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The Universe is expanding which indicated a beginning.


Chasuk 6 years ago

That's one explanation. Everything that exists is either expanding, shrinking, or remains in a steady state.

The universe could be a living, growing thing. It could be the millionth (10 billionth?) iteration of an infinite succession of expanding and collapsing universes.

As you said, either conclusion requires faith.


PhoenixV profile image

PhoenixV 6 years ago from USA

If the universe has "always been here" or has been the product of infinite previous universes, we would have to imagine how long "always " took to get here. An infinite regression paradox. If something literally takes forever to get here, we wait forever for it to arrive. For me the logical conclusion is that it had a definite beginning. Some "infinite" cause , allowed for a "finite effect"

Infinite doesnt exist like we know of, as things that exist.

Its a logical conclusion that the last integer of pi is in fact an integer, yet also as logical to conclude that "it cant be " any of those integers specifically.

Is a hypothetical infinite intelligent?

Knowledge is finite . Truth is infinite . Truth is the test of knowledge's accuracy on an infinite scale


Chasuk 6 years ago

The universe may have existed forever, but my span is shorter than that. I necessarily measure eternity in relation to the events of my lifetime.

When I was a Christian, I believed that God was eternal, yet I also believed that he came to us as Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, without paradox.


Winston 6 years ago

"It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator exists...it's a bigger leap of faith to say that is not so."

I would agree with you if creation were factual, but creation is opinion. I certainly understand how from your viewpoint everything you say seems reasonable, as you assume a creator, but your actual logic fails because you base your conclusions on assertions and appeals to authority.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

whatever Winston...creation is factual..you can believe in fairy tales if you want but it will be proven to you one day and on that day you will confess Jesus.


maewallace22 profile image

maewallace22 6 years ago

To believe in one you must believe in the other, if there is a good and there is an evil, then there is good and evil. Good Hub. Keep writting


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks maewallace22, I hope you voted in the poll and rated the hub.


Winston 6 years ago

"whatever Winston...creation is factual"

Ms. Hoffman, what is it that causes you to have so much difficulty saying "I believe or I have faith"?

You can believe creation is factual - I don't have a big problem with that idea. But fact it is not. It is only your opinion, belief, or faith.

I only ask for intellectual honesty in a person. After that, I don't care what they believe or don't believe.

It is your hub, and I would never have intruded on your hub had you not attempted to discredit and bar input from people who disagree with your beliefs.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

You can "believe" all you want, creation is a fact and quite obvious. You are right about one thing, it is my hub and I will do as I please. If you want to publish your "beliefs" then do so, you wont find me on them arguing with you.


Randy 6 years ago

Need to echo an earlier post.

"If you consider the impossibility of life to exist without the perfection of factors that cause this to be a habitable environment and the odds of this preciseness happening randomly (i.e. our distance from the sun, the angle of our Earth's revolution on it's axis, the oval orbit, the make up of our atmosphere, etc. etc.) the odds of occurrence without intelligent design are infinitely against it."

I would add: "Earth. Still Our Only Home."

God Bless Ya Brie.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Actually earth is not my home, heaven is, but otherwise well stated.


Randy 6 years ago

I agree. But for the time being we are here, oil and all.

Curious. If heaven is home, is the earth home away from home? I think we are charged with the care of it for our time here. (sorry I know it's off topic)

Really like your hubs. (sincerely) Keep it up.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Sure...I wrote hubs about this...this is God's creation and we are supposed to be taking care of it. Are you fan?


Randy 6 years ago

I'm unemployed now three months and I discovered your pages. I had lost myself because of my previous employer. The local government. What ever the hardship, glad to be outta there.

I like the tough topics and you address them.

And then,(honestly)

I read them and it is as if I could have wrote them myself. I could respond to many of them, but agree is all I would write.

So I find your pages to be quite supportive in a time where I have to recover myself from the political machine. Thank You.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Randy, you are not alone, glad I could be of some help.


Jay Howard 6 years ago

There are about 1500 Bibles that exist from before the printing press was invented.

Not one of them is identical to another. Passages have been added and removed, entire stories made up out of whole cloth. The story of "throwing the first stone" with Jesus and the Adulterer appears nowhere before around 1300. It was penciled in by a monk.

Some Bibles were modified for political use. Some for regional use.

In 976 the Pope outlawed the use of forks. In the 1300s cats were outlawed by the church. In the 1500s people were burned at the stake by the church for believing the earth was round. In 1849 when ether was first used as a pain killer the church banned it because pain was part of God's Plan. In the 1870s the church sold drugs that induced abortion...now they are against abortion. Every single time the church comes up against science it loses the battle, but only after people have died and suffered. Now the church has it's back to the wall and what's the argument? That's the universe is too complex for man to understand therefore God made it? If someone from 1776 saw a space shuttle, would he believe God made it? Asimov said, "Technology, if it is sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." I believe you could change the word "magic" with "religion".


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

The CATHOLIC church is NOT Christianity. And, you are wrong about the Bibles too. I have other hubs/articles on that very topic if you care to look.


Nikko 6 years ago

PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given."

Did this contradict his scientific views? The professor's thought-provoking answer was, "If you discovered how one wheel in the 'clock' turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring."

Contrary to the opinion of some, many respected men of science do not rule out the idea of there being a God—a Great Mastermind behind the creation of the universe and man.

Consider two more examples on this point. When mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies."

Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: "God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence." He then noted that in the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life's origin. Supporting this view, astronomer Fred Hoyle has stated that believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing that a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of Boeing 747 airplane parts dismembered and in disarray could produce a 747.

To these answers can be added the words of the Bible writer Paul: "[God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."—Romans 1:20.

"If you discovered how one wheel in the 'clock' turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you . . . better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring"

Yes, God really does exist! But what is his reason for allowing the world's present sorry state? What is his purpose for the earth? Can we know exactly who the true God is? yes we can


Nikko 6 years ago

And yes,the catholic church is the biggest,phony church of them all.Its so appearent.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

We matter to God and therefore we are very important.


EnglishM 6 years ago

Interesting hub, Brie. I think you are in need of some Divine Inspiration.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

As are we all!


EnglishM 6 years ago

I nearly wrote exactly the same thing. Thank you, Brie.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Awww beat you to it! :)


EnglishM 6 years ago

I wasn't being personal, Brie. This is a lovely hub. Divine Inspiration is one of mine:)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

I didn't take it personally, I was joking.

I'm glad you commented.


thephilosopher899 profile image

thephilosopher899 6 years ago

I don't know where I stand in all this, and maybe there is a god. But Whether he created the earth and whether he is as loving and all powerful as people think he is are two different ideas. If there was a god and he created everything, I can see that being true. Whether he is benevolent and omnipotent... I'm not sure.


thephilosopher899 profile image

thephilosopher899 6 years ago

The quotes from the dying atheists, I think, came from fear of death and the human condition of vulnerability. I don't think it disproves atheism, but rather shows the speaker's lack of courage when facing the unknown. It's a comforting thought, however untrue it may be, that a god will take care of you after you die.


mycanadianson profile image

mycanadianson 5 years ago from British Columbia

There's no logic to your argument. You say the big bang didn't happen because things don't just pop into being. Well then where did your creator come from? There's no evidence for a creator popping into being, either.

The point is, saying there is no god is just as ridiculous as saying there is a god.

Personally, my spirituality lies in my faith in the human experience, and nothing more.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

God always was and always will be. He is the first cause. If your spirituality lies in faith in the human experience I feel sorry for you.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

@Brie, delightfully logical. Wonderfully written.

The idea that Michelangelo did not exist because one has no proof is called "an argument to ignorance" (a logical fallacy).

By my own definition of "faith" (the kind used by Moses to part the sea and by Peter to walk on water), the term "blind faith" is an oxymoron. This kind of faith transcends the possibility of any blindness, at least in the areas of that faith. I've had some interesting experiences (experiments) with this kind of "faith." In a sense, you could say that I have proved my own spiritual nature. By extension, it is easy to extrapolate the existence of God from that proof. This does not constitute proof of God, directly, but it comes close.

And yet proof is entirely unnecessary.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks lone77star, it's nice to hear from a supporter...as you can see from the comments this article caused quite a stir!


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Brie, I understand and can appreciate causing quite a stir. I've done some of my own. I learn a great deal from each storm.

But perhaps the greatest lesson for me is in finding ways not to let ego get the upper hand. Don't feel sorry dismissively for those who stir the pot of discontent; that only feeds ego and we all lose when that happens.


MrCharisma83 profile image

MrCharisma83 5 years ago from Alabama

I just have something very simple to say. To those who say that God doesn't exist one way to prove if you are right is to die. Hear me in context now, I'm not saying kill yourself I am just saying at the point of death you will then find out if God really existed or not. However, I don't think that it's very wise to bank your life on that, considering the next life will be lived for eternity. And there will be no more grace once you stand in front of God. You have to make a decision now. Looking at that, the atheist stands more to lose.

To the Christian (which I am), if he or she is wrong, all they've done is followed God's commandments to the best of their abilities (weren't perfect) and vanished into nothing-ness after the point of death...

The Christian has lost nothing.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Good point MrCharism83!


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

MrCharisma83 and Brie Hoffman:

Ah yes... Pascal's Wager. It sounds good, but it is a lie. It means you lie in order to get into Heaven. It means that I discard everything I've learned in life that is telling me one thing and say "I believe" when I might not truly believe it in order to avoid punishment.

Which kind of person do you think God wants in heaven; one that was afraid to die and be judged for the kind of person they were and ended up believing out of fear, or the one who will honestly live their life in a manner they think is good and just and right, regardless of what someone they have never met might think of it?

Which kind of person do you think has more integrity? Which kind of person do you think is truly brave? I certainly know which I would rather be.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

You misunderstand God "swordsbane". First of all, he knows a lie so you can't "fool" God, secondly, the Bible says seek ME and you will find ME. So if someone truly desires to find God they will and therefore believe without lying. But for those who choose to delude themselves into thinking that they can achieve salvation on their own...well then, it will not work because God's standard is perfection and only one person fulfilled that; his name was Jesus.

BTW, I don't consider taking a chance on eternity brave, I consider it foolish.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie Hoffman: Then how does Pascals Wager work? What he is saying is that the "safe" path is to believe in God. But then what does that say about belief? We don't CHOOSE what to believe in. I don't say "I'm not going to believe in God." I say "I do not see a reason to believe in God, so I don't." You say that if I truly desire to find God, then I will. So what about all those who seek God all their lives, yet don't find Him? Are they flawed? Are they going to be judged harshly for their honest, heartfelt search for God even though they never found Him, or do you tell them they never REALLY searched for God because otherwise they would have found him? Were they somehow lying to themselves? And are they going to now suffer in the afterlife because of a mistake?

Can you honestly tell me that God is looking for believers and that their character doesn't matter? A believer who sits at home praying is more "worthy" of reward than a non-believer who spends his life helping others?

If that's true, you can keep Heaven and God. I don't think I'd like it there anyway.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yes, they are lying to themselves. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar".

The "ticket" to heaven is perfect sinlessness. You cannot attain it. Jesus attained it for you by suffering a cruel death FOR YOU, if you snub God's provision, there is no other provision for your sins.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: So I can be the most wonderful person in the world, but if I don't believe in God, I am to be punished for that? Jesus did it by suffering a cruel death for me? That's nice, but why do I owe Jesus/God anything for something I didn't say I wanted in the first place?

You still haven't answered the question: Which does God prefer: the unbeliever who spends his life helping people and trying to make the world a better place or the believer who just lives his life.

Why does my belief matter to God? Isn't what I do more important? The kind of person I am? How I treat my fellow man? How I treat the universe? What does my belief or unbelief add to that?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, no one is righteous no not one. That is what the Bible says. Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world but to save it because the world is condemned already. God's requirement is perfection, can you be perfect? NO. The Bible says what is required, Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul and no one has ever done that, so no one is good enough. God does not grade on a curve. God will not force you to take his gift, you have the option of living in eternity without him. Without God is no good thing and that is why its called hell.

God is not mocked if someone says they believe but they don't really, He knows. The unbeliever still has his debt/sin and if he doesn't accept God's gift, repent and turn to God he will have to pay for it himself..no amount of "good works" will pay that debt.

Yes, it matters to God what kind of person you are but you are deceiving yourself if you think that you are a good person. Have you ever lied? Then, you are a liar. Have you ever stolen anything? Then, you are a thief. Have you ever lusted after someone? Then you have committed adultery. If you reject the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God, God will reject you...read the Bible and you will see.

Read this: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Are-You-Go...


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: If I have lied, stolen, lusted then I am a sinner. My belief in God is irrelevant. I know what kind of a person I am, and I have no allusions beyond that. I don't need God's approval in the matter. I am a flawed human being. I have regrets, and I have mistakes in my past. If I can be redeemed simply by believing in God, then I haven't attained anything of value. If I am rejected simply because of my unbelief, then I haven't lost anything of value. If I am to be refused Heaven on that basis, then Heaven is no place I want to be.

I am at peace with that.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

The word "believe" in the Bible means to trust in, rely upon..it's not to acquiesce. It also doesn't matter if you are at peace with your decision, you wont be the moment you die.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: "Trust in" = "Belief"?

You'll have to do better than that. I do not "Trust in" something I don't believe in. If your asking if I trust in God's judgement, then technically I do. If he doesn't exist, then belief doesn't matter. If he does, then I trust that my character and my actions speak for themselves. If he exists and condemns me for my lack of belief, then I do not want to be in his presence.

I trust in that. That is what I mean when I say I am at peace. I am ready for all possible outcomes, and I do not make excuses for myself or anything I do.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

I suggest you YOutube Near Death experiences of Hell and see if you are ready for ALL possible outcomes.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: You think I am unaware of what believers call Hell? You think I don't know what people say will happen if I go there?

How many True Believers have chosen to rot in prisons because of their belief? History is full of people who undergo torture and death rather than a simple, insincere declaration that they do not believe in their God. The only thing that makes their sacrifice noble is that they believed they were right. The only thing that makes me different from them is the fact that you think I'm wrong. I have accepted what MAY happen to me. It is as certain in my mind that you are wasting at least a portion of your life because of your belief as it is in your mind that I am sacrificing my soul for mine, but if I happen to be wrong, then I still think I am going where I belong and it will be with more people who are like me. That is a GOOD THING. No excuses, no last minute conversions, no illusions.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

If I am wrong, yes, part of my life will have been sacrificed but I would still say it has been a good life (btw, I KNOW that I am not wrong). If you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell. Yes, a lot of people will be there too but you will not see them. It is total darkness and total loneliness, no good thing will be there.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: If I am right, I know that my life has been a good one too. So we both consider our lives well spent, and by any objective human secular review, we would probably both be right. What does belief add to that?

I, like you think that my life is a good one. The difference is that I believe my life is good regardless of whether I believe in a God or not. You seem to think belief is necessary for a good life.

That makes me pity you. You worship a being who places the acknowledgement of his existence the as the highest ideal his followers can express. The vanity of that boggles the mind.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

You don't understand because the natural man cannot discern the things of God..you have to ask God for understanding.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

If the "natural man" cannot discern the things of God, then how do you know you're not sharing a delusion rather than feeling God?

I find the whole "mysterious God" argument to be slightly paradoxical. I ask a question and the answer is "You cannot understand God" but then I am asked to believe another poor mortal telling me about God.

And if you're saying I can't understand until I accept God, then you're telling me I can't accept God until I accept God, which is circular logic.

Go ahead and tell me there is no rational reason to believe in God, and that I simply must accept him. I'll respect that. Saying "Well it's obvious if you are just open to it." That's insulting to me AND to you, even if you don't realize it.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

I never said that you should "believe" me, I said that God said if you seek Him you will find Him. I have been born again so I am no longer a "natural" man/woman.

I am NOT telling you just to "accept" God..I am telling you to search for HIM and you will find HIM. The Bible says to knock and keep knocking, to seek and keep seeking until you find HIM. I cannot make HIM real to you, you have to meet HIM yourself, then you will believe.

Do you understand?


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Brie: Yes. You DID say that if you seek God, you will find Him. So does that mean if you don't find Him you weren't really seeking Him?

If you go looking for God, there are only two possibilities; you find Him or you don't. If you don't find Him, there are two further possibilities; He isn't there, or there was something wrong with your search. If you do find Him, there are two further possibilites; that you really found Him, or you have mistaken something else for Him.

You say that you have found God, so from your perspective, one who looks for God and doesn't find Him has only one possibility to deal with; that there was something wrong with the search. So I could search from now until I die without finding Him, and my failure is always going to be my fault.

However, if you are being strictly logical about it, you must conclude that the possibility exists, however remote you think it may be, that you have not found God, that you found something that seems to be what you expected to find and you call it God. If you can't admit to that possibility, then there is no basis for a rational discussion between you and I.

And if you DO admit to the possibility, then the only way to resolve the problem it creates is to find some other way of determining whether God exists besides your personal search for Him.

If you can't do that, then arguing from a point of certainty is useless. It comes down to this: You are either satisfied with the kind of person you are, or you're not. The question of God's existence doesn't matter. If it does, if you are a different person with the knowledge and acceptance of God's existence, then you are not honest with yourself, and you don't know who you truly are. Character is what you are when no one is watching, even God.

I am happy with the kind of person I am. You seem to think that I would think differently if I knew God was real. I don't.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

You are correct, if you don't find God, you are at fault. And, yes I found HIM and I know it, there is no possibility that I am incorrect in that.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author


Joseph041167 profile image

Joseph041167 3 years ago from Nashville TN 37206.

This article offended me and I am upset. I like most of Brie's articles and most of her ideas and political values. I am not sure what to do with her or this article and I am still finishing up reading all the comments. Why do Christians insist on misrepresenting Atheism? Why do they never do their homework? And, I do not appreciate being called a fool, Christians throw that around liberally. "We exist, therefore God exists." I am not up on the terminology at present, but on some level, I am aware this to be a failure of logic. "We exist, therefore Bigfoot exists." Infinite Universe Theory was the antiquated scientific position. It goes back to Ancient Greece. It has been held by Atheists, Theists, and Deists alike. It is enjoyed in scientific and philosphical circles, even today, it is held by many. There are many more parts to it, but for now, parts of the universe were pre-existent, or maybe pre-eternal. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates held some of this. I think maybe Epicurus, Democritus, Leucippus, Diogenes, and many others. The Universe could be pre-eternal. This had been the view. Notable astro-physicists such as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Herman Bondi, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant V. Narlikar, and many others, found on YouTube, and Hubpages, google and elsewhere. Even as most began shifting to the Big Bang theory, they did so as a subset to thier original views. Our universe could well be a bubble in an ocean of pre-eternal universes, it is a blossoming bubble, it could even collapse later on. The Big Bang is not an explosion eithor as is commonly thought. It is an expansion, or inflation. The Big Bang theory, now the popular one, was brought to the table by Christians. Christians teach Ex-Nihilo, "out of nothing." So, it is the Christians who hold to these views, not the Atheists. The Big Bang theory is the accepted theory now, but it is not without problems, which need addressing and not everyone is convinced. I can find part of it on line, it had to do with Red Shift and, I think, Quasars, the measurements do not come out right. "Random versus Order." It can be mechanistic, mechanical, or other terms. It matters not whethor you are Christian or Atheist. We do not know, it may be order or random. Mathematicians show these designs and equations to demonstrate a random universe. I do not follow their language, but they are convinced, on a random universe. The stars are just thrown out there at random. People make pretty pictures called the Zodiac. That was not designed. It was accidental. The human mind seeks to create order where there is none. This is true. It could be an order universe, and it looks that way sometimes. We just do not know, or we can theorize, and argue. "God exists outside of the causal loop." This is an argument which knowledgable Atheists should be aware. This is possible. This is not verifiable or falsifiable. And neithor is God. We experience the universe every day, we know it is there. Why not stop there with what we have? How do we take a jump from there to what we do not know? Brie, you and I share so many views. Why do you call me a fool, why not labor around mutual goals? I am ostracized by the Atheist majority because I do not follow the far left. I share most of your traditional family values and high moral standards. I gladly vote for Christians, and even Mormons. They are the ones with the morals, the Epicurun ideals, the Aristotlian ideals, unfortunately. Some of your statements, I assume you follow Calvin and Luther. Both of these men personally presided over the deaths of thousands in their inquisitions and witch trials. Both of them were mass murderors. Both of them were male chauvinist on wheels. They deprived women of medicine during child birth, intentionally. They worked women like slaves. So, who is being fool hardy? Why would anyone want to remotely be associated or identified with them? Even John Wesley, the guy I came up under, wished to bring the Witch Trials back. I had to get away from all of that. I am looking for a new leader, maybe Epicurus, idk


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan Author

You bring up a lot of superlative arguments but the main thing is that the universe is expanding therefore it had to have a beginning and we know that something cannot come from nothing. There had to be a cause outside of the universe because the universe cannot exist before it existed. Therefore God exists.

In order for your theory to be true you would have to have both a male and a female come into being through evolution at the same time which is statistically impossible.


Raitu Disong profile image

Raitu Disong 3 years ago

Great hub!

I wrote "Does God exist?"

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Vs-Sci...

You did a great job. God bless


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Raitu, I loved the story at the end of your hub.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working