jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (130 posts)

Would scientific proof of God's change atheists minds?

  1. aguasilver profile image88
    aguasilverposted 2 years ago

    Matthew Boulder, chief linguist for the project and professor of applied creation sciences at Bob Jones University, issued this statement: “As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day. And the beauty of it, that God would lay down the words of truth in our very beings, shows his love and The Miracle.”

    http://witscience.org/first-scientific-proof-god-found/

    1. Sed-me profile image83
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He's not only a scientist, he's a poet. What a beautiful quote.
      Side note: It's nice to see your real pic. smile

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hope it's not too much of a shock seeing it! smile

        1. Sed-me profile image83
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Not at all. I like to put a real face with a name. You have a Michael Caine air about you. smile

          1. aguasilver profile image88
            aguasilverposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Not many people know that! smile

            1. Sed-me profile image83
              Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I s'pose that could be a nice way of saying Im way off base or that maybe everyone else is. lol
              Either way, it's very good to see you finally. smile

    2. LeslieAdrienne profile image80
      LeslieAdrienneposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wonderful quote AquaSilver....  To answer the question, would scientific proof of God's existence change atheists minds... No. 
      The reason it would not change their minds is because, when a person has an established mind-set they are completely closed to even considering any contrary information. The hard-core atheist will believe when they see Him returning in the clouds

      By the way...you should see the movie, "God is Not Dead". The scientific proofs for the existence of God that are given in that movie are astounding.... you'll love it!

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder if even then they will not believe. Perhaps they will claim he is a drone.

      2. 60
        Anonymous1234posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I would certainly change my mind at the sight of real scientific evidence.  I would consider the possibility at the sight of any actual evidence.  You have none.  What is shown in this website is not real.  This was a joke article.  The Wyoming Institute of Technology is not an actual place.

    3. Brie Hoffman profile image81
      Brie Hoffmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No, because Atheism is a matter of the heart not the mind.

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      More evidence that the gullible are preyed upon. Please do some research.

    5. Caleb DRC profile image86
      Caleb DRCposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Aquasilver, It is good to correspond with you again. That is a very fascinating article. It merits further research. In answer to your question:  NO!  No amount of evidence would get that job done, but I know you know that.

    6. Travis Wakeman profile image89
      Travis Wakemanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is a joke article. Look up the "Wyoming Institute" it doesn't exist.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But the point still remains.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The point that our junk DNA contains scripture or that the gullible get taken once again?

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The point is that there is even a dna.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why not plastics?  Or benzene derivatives?  Some petroleum chemicals?  All can be very large, complex molecules - does it being in our bodies make it special somehow?

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That's not what I said.


                you can break it down to this: the existence of even an atom - is a kind of miracle.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Best guess we have is that there was/is no miracle involved.  Atoms came into being after the big bang, and absolutely followed natural laws as they did so.  That takes the action firmly out of the "miracle" category, defined as events that violate natural law.

                  Now if you define the term miracle as just "something we don't understand" that includes TV, computers and even cars for most people.  That way you could include creation of atoms as a miracle if you wish to.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Let us check your own words:


                    "Of course.  That's the wonder - how and why did those giant stalactites form?  How could the Hawaiian islands, or the Galapagos, evolve from molten lava to the paradise it is today?"

                    "The mechanics of making the grand canyon certainly make us shake our heads in wonder.  That the deepest canyon in NA (Hells Canyon) was mostly cut in just a few days is fascinating."

                    "We wonder about everything around us and the more we know and understand the more we wonder."

                    http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2604026





                    What do you mean by these words?

                  2. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It would be a mistake to use the term, natural laws, in an absolute sense.



                    There are no natural laws as such. We call those laws natural because we are constantly living under them and this is what we have ever seen to be existing. We have never found any alternative to those natural laws.

                    But - it is disingenuous to assume that simply because we humans never discovered any alternative to those laws - no such alternative exist or 'can' exist.


                    We can't be sure that anything like a 'big-bang' ever indeed happened and that it formed all the atoms of the universe. Even if it did exist - then that foundational cause would invoke more cardinal questions:  what mechanism initiated the big-bang? How those natural laws of the universe came to be? And what initiated that mechanism itself?

                    What created this utter cosmic emptiness that we conveniently label as space?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, can there is DNA in every living thing. Is there anything in our DNA that suggests God inserted a sign for us? Could you honestly tell our DNA from that of any other Ape? Do you know what happens when they start turning on that junk DNA in other animals?

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Have you ever created a dna, yourself?

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, but we have taken the time to understand DNA, it's origins and how it works.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Please be then satisfied with what you've got.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, and I could supply the DNA of my three boys as evidence.

  2. EncephaloiDead profile image62
    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago

    Let’s play a game. It’s called: “How can we tell when something is satire?”

    To begin with…

    The Wyoming Institute of Technology isn’t a real place. (Don’t confuse it with the Wyoming Technical Institute, which is.)

    The websites for most institutions of higher learning don’t have ads from Comedy Central in their sidebars.

    Bob Jones University isn’t a place where credible scientists work.

    If you click on the name of the author, Dr. Richter DasMeerungeheuer, it takes you to a URL with the name BryanS.

    The article includes the line, “Linguistic professors at Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor…,” so you know right there it’s a joke.

    It goes on like this for a while. The writers basically took a page from the Answers in Genesis playbook: If you include a lot of big words and make it sound like actual science, gullible people will believe anything you say.

    lol

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      OK, thanks for pointing it out... sad I checked it out and you are correct.....

      Very well done though, looked genuine!

      Also feel right, that we have Gods word in our very DNA... Oh well, just have to wait for science to discover that for real.

      Wonder what is in all that 'Junk DNA'?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Atavistic remnants from previous stages of evolution. In simplest terms, while the zygote is forming, it's the stuff that says, "Alright, form some scales--oh wait, no, these instructions supercede those and say to form feathers--wait, no, apparently it's thick layers of hair now--or wait, just a fine covering of hair. Okay, we're good to proceed."

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...who is "we?"

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The bits of protein that make up DNA, of course.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image62
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Scientists already know what it is, that's why it's termed "Junk". It's just DNA they have found to be non-functioning for a variety of reasons. Experiments were conducted that removed DNA from an organism and found no discernible changes occurred to it's offspring as a result.

    2. LeslieAdrienne profile image80
      LeslieAdrienneposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good research... The guy might not be real, but the quote is still true and magnificent. Don't you agree? smile

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not really, I find it rather insulting.

        1. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          They did not.

  3. bBerean profile image58
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    Romans 1:19-20  "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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 eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

    If a person can look at the wonders of creation which God has provided as incontrovertible proof of Himself, yet still deny Him, what greater evidence can we present?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately for the myth, no god provided the "wonders of creation" you reference.  They are, after all, a natural occurrence and no god was needed for their formation.

      How about presenting your god, instead of claiming mountains prove it is out there somewhere?

      1. Brie Hoffman profile image81
        Brie Hoffmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes because we know that nothing created everything!

        1. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          smile

        2. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I hate dentists too! The repairman wink

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes because we all know nothing created God?

          I find it amusing that some claim everything must be created with the exception of the creator.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Respectfully request seniors to clear your spiritual doubts, then.

        4. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps it did.  Unless you have proof beyond your word or that if a 2000 year old tome that something else happened?  Of course, that assumes that a singularity is "nothing" - something we all know to be false...

  4. bBerean profile image58
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    Wilderness,

    I couldn't have asked for a better response.  You represent the atheists well.  Allow me to address your last comment first.  This thread is about how a case cannot be made for God's existence that an atheist will accept.  It is beyond ludicrous to suppose no designer, no engineer, was involved in the intricacies of creation, the least of which humbles man's greatest achievements so completely any comparison is frankly pathetic.  Nevertheless, that is the atheist’s contention. 

    Millions of people's experiences and knowledge of spirituality are dismissed as delusional.  People giving personal accounts of proof they have experienced is similarly written off, usually in a tone of disdain.  Any mention of the fact most people now, and through history have been aware of spirituality and believe in a god, is charged with an appeal to popularity with the intent of negating it's merit, while on the other hand an appeal to popularity is quickly employed to defend evolution, climate change, or any other tenet of Scientism. 

    So it seems the bible is once again correct, in that a true atheist is unlikely to ever believe, and efforts to convince them of something they have already rejected is largely a waste of time.   So what is the point of continuing?  Just because neither you nor I are about to change our minds, we can still enjoy some dialogue.  Besides, there are those who have not yet said in their heart that there is no god, who can benefit from reading these exchanges. 

    Now, I think it's high time we address the giant unicorn in the room.  It goes something like this, the atheist demands the believer prove God exists.  The believer responds with the things mentioned above, which are all summarily dismissed by the atheist.  Next the believer says, "Prove God doesn't exist."  Atheists love this because they have been asked to prove a negative.  In the name of the blessed spaghetti monster, queue the unicorn parade!  There will be pixies, leprechauns and fairies on full display.  I must admit, much of the ensuing banter is entertaining.

    On a more serious note though, it really is time for the atheists and agnostics both to quit hiding behind their pet dragons and defend the positive claim they are making.  Whether made as directly as my example, or just clearly inferred, it looks something like this:   

    "Unfortunately for the myth, no god provided the "wonders of creation" you reference.  They are, after all, a natural occurrence and no god was needed for their formation."

    So there we have it.  A positive declaration that "wonders of creation" require no god.  No engineer.  No designer.  Christian's say, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  Atheists and agnostics alike purport it is possible for everything to come from nothing, and then somehow turn into what we see with no direction, reason, plan or intervention.  Just all on nothing's lonesome.  Please defend this positive claim.  In all my years I have never seen a shred of credible evidence to defend such a position.  Certainly the big bang and evolution don't answer it, no matter how much anyone wants to infer it does, (they won't directly say they do because it is obvious they do nothing to answer the question of origin). 

    We already know the atheist says the believer takes it on faith, without evidence, that god must have done it.  Atheists basically, without evidence, take it on faith that it had to be anything but god, (we wouldn't want to be accountable, would we?).  So the stage is yours, where is your proof that your positive claim is firmly based on anything more than blind faith and wishful thinking?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I can agree with a lot that you have said here. I would ask that you not lump atheists and agnostics under the same heading. Atheists are the flip side of the theist coin. Decisions have been made without sufficient evidence to make them.

      The agnostic stand is simple. We cannot know, for sure. It's an easy position to understand, so I am always a bit confused by the theist who calls us atheist and the atheist who labels us believers. The reason I label myself agnostic is that there are unanswered holes in the belief that no Creator exists. There is an intricacy in life that cannot be so easily explained by the simple belief in the universe evolving to what it is today from a beginning of, basically, nothing. However, religion has consistently made statements from what appears to be the same position of ignorance the non religious exist in; concerning the beginnings of what we observe. Their claims, which are unsupportable by fact, have rendered their assumptions unworthy of any faith in their ability to answer cosmic questions.

      Anyway. It isn't as simple as black and white. Please refrain from assuming that any who don't agree with you are all alike. Agnostics are not necessarily atheists. It is a fact that we have listened to both sides of the aisle and find no compelling argument to agree with either.

      1. bBerean profile image58
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Emile,

             Thank you for your response, and I do understand your perspective.  I also anticipated this complaint.  For most issues the distinction is more relevant.  I am admittedly taking the biblical perspective outlined in the verses I originally provided which contend creation is the clear evidence of the Creator, which is self evident and must be willingly rejected as such, therefore all who do so are without excuse.  In this regard, there is little difference, for to even consider Creation could come about without a Creator requires doubting the evidence the bible considers clear.   You have to believe it possible our origin required no Creator, and that is the positive claim I charge must be defended or acknowledged as only held through blind faith.

        There is an important distinction, however...a true agnostic has not made a conclusion so perhaps they will still come to recognize creation is abundant proof.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think the growing tendency of people toward agnosticism is not rooted in questions about a Creator. I don't know that it matters, one way or the other. Because, the agnostic stand exists due to religion's whole hearted belief that their beliefs are, in fact, true; when there is no evidence that any Creator agrees with this assumption, supports the assumption, or in any other manner  has gone out of its way to ensure that there is evidence to back them.

          Over two thousand years has passed. It is not difficult to see that doubt would arise concerning the claims of many religions and many sects within Christianity. If it mattered, on a cosmic scale, doubt would be much more difficult. It is impossible to imagine a God who would condemn for non belief whilst making non belief not only a very easy option; but quite logical. It would almost appear as if the stage was set in order to ensure few made it to the afterlife. The deck was stacked against humanity. I find it difficult to understand how Christ would be considered to triumph. If you lose the game 2 billion to 1, claiming victory sounds a little ludicrous. The idea of God cannot be ludicrous. If it were truly so, I doubt we would be here.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry Emile, if you don't think exactly like him you are not like him. Sad really.

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Dear

                 Rad Man; may I ask you a sincere question?



              question:  What are you really looking for in these forums? Are you looking to have a 'good' discussion? Are you looking forward to clear your doubts? Further your knowledge about stellar nurseries, and other stuff like that?

              Please don't take it (my question) offensively. I'm really genuinely curious.

              (Often) your replies (like your current reply)) seem to be just too out of line.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'll gladly reply to what I understand and then ask a question if you don't mind.

                I find the topic fascinating. How and why would someone convince themselves that an all powerful super dad made the universe for us?

                No offence taken.

                I have no idea what you are talking about here.

                Now my turn, what are you doing here, most times you seem to just comment on comments rather than offering anything? Why is that?

                1. Prodio profile image60
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Even that I commented on your comment - served a purpose. I do not - generally - reply to threads that I have not started myself. You may check the validity of this data yourself, if you like to.

                  I do not try to insult and mock people just because they do not hold (cherish) something which I find to be (subjectively) inappropriate.

                  If I do find something of that sort, I respectfully ask them if they might clear my doubts about it.



                  I can, on the other hand, show data which (might) demonstrate that you, Rad Man, is interested in hitting people in their 'soft corners'. Religious 'beliefs', by their fundamental nature, are sensitive issues which require to be treated in a special way. You might think that you are trying to help people by preaching atheism (your version of it) to them.

                  But you might be simply hurting their feelings (unintentionally / intentionally) in a grotesque way.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Have you contacted any of the believers and told them that they may be hurting others feelings?

                2. Prodio profile image60
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Sorry Emile, if you don't think exactly like him you are not like him. Sad really."

                  ~ Is this a very respectful way of speaking to someone about someone else?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Was my statement incorrect?

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Is it your responsibility to monitor the exchanges here? And, chastise those who don't interact in what you consider to be an acceptable manner?

                    Seriously. We are all adults.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image62
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                For someone who rarely if ever actually posts something from their own mind, but instead usually just copies and pastes irrelevant stuff, you have very little to question others about what they're doing here. You are obviously not looking for any discussions if all you do is copy/paste. That is what is out of line, dude.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                2. Prodio profile image60
                  Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Please provide the exact ratio between (my) 'copy paste activity' and my original contribution, on this site (by word counts).

                  Thank you (for calling me a dude).

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image62
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    lol In other words, you want me to waste my time following up on your irrelevant request because you have nothing to copy/paste.

          2. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This was very well said,  Emile, and I appreciate this post even though you and I don't see eye to eye on a lot.   Thanks.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well, this God that you claim made everything can't be tested for in any way shape or form. The bible, Quran and Torah and the book of Mormon have all been shown to be wrong and fictitious. Explaining a God that has always existed and always will and can't be tested for flies against everything we understand about the universe and doing so as to explain the universe when the universe can be explain without any Gods is ludicrous.

      Considering we are not the centre of the universe, we are not in the ideal place in the universe, we are spinning around a second or third generation fast burning star that will burn us out and it's self will other stars continue to create consistent heat 10 or a 100 times longer than our own sun. Seems more like a random event than an intended event and claiming the universe was built just for us is rather silly. But sorry, I can supply no proof that unicorns don't exist, I can only supply the knowledge that none have been show to exist as an augment.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It has begun...

    3. Prodio profile image60
      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You have 2 arguments against atheism. And any ('mature') atheist, if they want to, can overpower those arguments.

      Perhaps you should (try to) be more creative.

    4. EncephaloiDead profile image62
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, that is the scientific contention, based on facts and evidence, hence your argument is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.



      Sorry, but that is entirely false, evolution and climate change are based on facts and evidence making your argument a purposeful omission of fact.



      Yes, it is entertaining, watching believers squirm and wriggle as they attempt to argue in favor of their invisible gods and then toss the burden of responsibility onto others when they fail.



      Excuse me? You believers are the ones making the positive claims, you are the ones who need to defend your claims.



      Yes, those are the facts based on the evidence, sorry if they don't align with your religious beliefs, but that is how reality works.



      That's what science has already accomplished, yours is then an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.



      Sorry, but that again is an Argument from Ignorance. There is a lot of evidence to support that position.



      Sorry, but the facts and evidence from science are the proof, yours is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

    5. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      .

      "Millions of people's experiences and knowledge of spirituality are dismissed as delusional.  People giving personal accounts of proof they have experienced is similarly written off, usually in a tone of disdain"

      Most religious people don't have "experiences". They just believe with bling faith. Those that have "experiences" ARE delusional.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        This is interesting. If i remember correctly, you've posted on this site that you had experiences. I also remember you posting that you have had delusional episodes.

        I hope you aren't taking your personal experience and assuming this is indicative of others, in general. Few people are delusional. Most easily identify the difference between reality and delusion.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think ALL "religious experience" is probably delusional. What better evidence than experiencing it myself?

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, you have admitted to having a documented psychiatric condition. Most people don't have psychiatric conditions. So, that means you aren't most people. You are somewhat unique.

            I guess you would have to define 'religious experience' in order for me to know if I agree, or disagree. I don't think it is beyond the bounds of reason to accept that someone has had experience which leads them to believe there is more to reality than what we presently see. That there is something that could be described as a spiritual element. Now, if someone told me God spoke to them and told them that Judaism, Christianity or Islam was the one true religion and anyone who didn't follow per that individual's understanding was going to a fiery demise....I'd ask for proof, or assume they were either confused, or lying.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I too believe there is more to reality than we presently see. But that doesn't mean it's supernatural, or cam be explained away as God or a form of spiritual reality.

              Quantum mechanics shows there's more to reality than we can see, and we don't even have to get out of the realms of science.

              I had "religious" experience and totally through logic out the window. I hopefully won't make that mistake again.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I think it is too soon to rule anything out. I don't advocate throwing logic out the window; but I also don't advocate belief that we know any more than we know. I would think if quantum mechanics shows there is more to reality than we can see; then it is obvious we don't know all there is to know about reality.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              To be fair, she is making an excellent point. Imagine two people, both claiming to have religious experience which makes them sure the experiences are real. One comes to the understanding that they were delusional while the other continues to claim the experiences are real? I seem to recall a few people here that claimed Jane's experiences may be real, which is of course a terrible thing to say to someone suffering from delusions. So, two people claiming to have similar experiences, we call one delusional and the other not. Why?

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Because mental illness is not universal?
                You may think it is but I see no evidence to believe that.

                There is no excellent point, except maybe she wants to create an illusion of normalcy by thinking others are like her? Janesix shared her paranoid delusions previously. I applaud her for seeking help. But, a mental illness in one does not imply all are mentally ill. I wouldn't insult people by implying that. It is one thing for someone to have paranoid delusions. It is another thing, entirely, to accuse someone of being delusional because you can't explain an experience. If someone knows they were lucid during an unexplainable incident instead of offering ridiculous explanations, I prefer to not make myself look foolish by offering them.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If someone is seeing demons, Gods or Satan, I'd suggest they seek professional help. Or would you rather I entertain the idea that they may in fact be seeing demons and others can't rather than ask that they seek help? If one is hearing or seeing things that just isn't there what do we call that?

                  Now if someone says they simply have faith that God exists that is completely different than claiming to see demons.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If someone claims they saw God, Satan or demons then I'd be like you. Or, even if they didn't see any of those but claimed those were talking to them then I'd advise professional help.

    6. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      bBerean,  you confuse that possibility of a designer/creator with the judgmental god that people of monotheist religions like to promote in their fear-mongering.  All the confused talk you make about the questions surrounding the creation of this world, is of little importance, although it can make for interesting dialogue.

      If the entire discussion was on the supposed nature of such a creator,  then I would have no problem going along with your ideas.  However, once anyone declares even the slightest acceptance of such a "god," you (I suspect) and most others will immediately bring in the judgmental god.  I will be declared sinful, in need of forgiveness, or else face eternal condemnation, because you and others in the churches can take charge of me, control me, judge me in accordance with your interpretation of a questionable book.

      You go from a wonderful, all-encompassing view of the Finite World, to a man-made clamour for power over others, using imaginary metaphors of a Just, Angry, Loving, Omnipotent, Pure, Undefiled, Father Figure, .....   

      Where do you sit, personally, in this hierarchy of control, bBerean?

      1. bBerean profile image58
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I seek nothing from anyone, beyond my friends and family. Not money.  Not moral support.  Not acceptance or approval.  Don't get me wrong, I'll take what I can get, but am not seeking any of it. wink  So too then, regarding control, I have no interest in controlling anyone.  I have plenty of responsibility already and have no need of anymore.  I don't seek to control you or anyone else. 

        I may share the truth as I see it, but regardless of what that is, it in no way compels anyone to do or not do anything.  Just discussing, sharing thoughts, conversing.  Much of the response I get, particularly from atheist / agnostics, I find curious.  It is fascinating what different people believe, accept, reject and how they rationalize.  I am here mostly to observe.   Occasionally I chime in.

  5. word55 profile image81
    word55posted 2 years ago

    Only possibly if there was scientific proof that an atheist would have a change of mind but here is beyond your question or point; God's existence is first, based on belief and not proof. If one believes in God then He exists. Secondly, after believing in God then God is justified by the works in the life of the believer/receiver. If one does not believe in Him then He does not exist and therefore will be no proof.

  6. Mrinfo10 profile image60
    Mrinfo10posted 2 years ago

    Atheists already know in their hearts that God exists, but they deny the truth with their false philosophies. Just think, Jesus performed all those miracles and healings, and yet the Pharisees still wouldn't believe!

    1. JMcFarland profile image92
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is so untrue that it's actually really funny.  Thanks for the laugh.

      If you don't get the joke,  imagine what you would think if I turned around and said that all Christians knew in their hearts that Allah was the real god, but due to their rebellious spirit,  they deny him and follow a false god instead.   Can you prove that you don't know in your heart that Allah was real?

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Theists already know in their hearts that God doesn't exists, but they deny the truth with their false philosophies. Just think, Jesus performed all those miracles and healings, and yet the Pharisees still wouldn't believe!

    3. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hahaha...so, you equate atheists with the Pharisees?  Such judgment!  Look to your own heart, Sir/Madam !

      1. Mrinfo10 profile image60
        Mrinfo10posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, I wasn't being judgmental, and I apologize if my statement came across that way. I was merely implying that when someone's heart is closed to God - whether they're an atheist or not - even God's appearing and proving His existence might not be enough for that person to give their hearts to God or to follow Him. I have a few friends who are ahteists, and I love them and never judge those who don't believe.

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But you have made a judgement that you somehow know what's in our hearts better than we do.   That is judgement,  and it's ludicrous.

        2. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, but you have indeed judged!   You might not have said so in words, but your whole attitude says that I am of a lesser standing with your God than you are.   

          Otherwise, how could you even think that I need to give my heart to "Him?"  You think that you have done so, so that puts you ahead of me.  A judgment for sure.



          Can you not see that is a contradictory statement?  How could my "heart be closed to God," when I do not even accept there is such an entity?  You are totally free to have your beliefs, in regard to what you feel you have to do in order to "enter the Kingdom of Heaven,"  and I respect that. In no way can you justify applying your beliefs on to me or anyone else.

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did I get this correct? An all powerful, all knowing God can't provide evidence of his existence to me?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Dear Rad Man,
            Have you ever read the words of Jesus with an open mind?
            What specifically turns you off in regards to things Jesus did or said?

            Just Curious.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why didn't you answer my question?

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Life is scientific proof of life.
      ...and how does anyone explain Death?

 
working