jump to last post 1-50 of 130 discussions (579 posts)

The Burden of Proof is on Believers

  1. 0
    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago

    The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:
    "the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe. The "proof" you seek in order for YOU to believe, you already have known. It is as God stated in Romans, since the beginning you have known God is. it is really the indoctrination of sin which deludes you to Him as of now. It is your lack of faith which demonstrates exactly what God said it would..”

    The absolute, bar non worst and most fallacious argument a believer in God can propose is the “negative proof” argument.  It goes like this.  The non-believer says:  “Prove God exists.”  The believer say:  “Prove he DOESN'T.  Obviously, it is impossible to examine every nook and cranny in the universe, or to examine every subatomic particle to find "God".  I've run across some that will then go on to say:  “Well, then it's true.”  This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy: 

    Others simple stop and thankfully don't go on to state that:  “Well, then it must be true.”  But, there's the implication (or outright claim) that the burden of proof is NOT on the believers.  As it's impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, the onus of proof lies on the one making the positive statement:  “God exists”. 

    We can, of course make an analogy to science.  The burden of proof is always on the scientist to prove whatever he or she is claiming to exist, actually does in fact exist.  If he or she cannot provide such evidence, then it's widely accepted that the assumption of nonexistence is to be accepted.  It's called the Laplacian principle.  The case for the existence of anything comes from positive proof.  Once that has been done, THEN the burden of proof can be shifted to the one continuing to make the claim for the nonexistence.  Their task is then to show how the evidence is not credible. 

    We operate this way in our courts/legal system.  One is presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty.  This premise is how investigations are created.  Imagine going into a courtroom being charged with a crime you are completely innocent of.  You are then given the task of proving you are NOT guilty.  How unfair would that be!  It's reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction debacle where Rumsfeld attempted to shift the burden of proof. 

    Bertrand Russell makes this case beautifully:  “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”  From Is There a God?

    If you are to provide such proof, make sure it doesn't come from the Bible, as that is the mother of all logical fallacies called circular reasoning.  God exists, I know because the Bible says so.  I know the Bible is correct because it was inspired by God.”  This is circular reasoning, fallacy of redundancy, tautology.  Please don't use:  “You can't see air, but you know it exists!”  Ummm, sorry air can be scientifically probed.  And finally, having faith isn't proof.  It's tantamount to saying:  “Just trust me.”  Faith is not subject to proof.  When I am provided with said proof, as the burden is on the believers, I will THEN shift my belief system. Then we will have a real debate on our hands.

    1. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Gain enlightenment and you will have your proof like I got mine and its not just a matter of faith but of knowing on a first hand bases. smile

    2. emdi profile image72
      emdiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well, proofs doenot always needs to be visible. Usually people say seeing is believing, but there are many things in life we believe without seeing, but by faith.

      I believe my kids and my wife, trust and love me. How can give visible proofs to people who ask for that?

      I believe because, I experience and not by seeing. This people can understand if they think with an open heart and a little intellectual humility. This faith and belief is infact the solid foundation of relationships and family.

      I once read some one saying " My wife left me and took away my dogs, I miss my dogs"

      Dogs are visible but not the faith,love and trust.

      1. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Apples and oranges.  Emotions ARE scientifically probed, electrical and chemical reactions in a number of areas in the brain involving neurotransmitters.  All of these chemical and electrical processes in the mind have been scientifically proven to exist in various areas of the brain.  PET scans can show these processes and the firing in the brain.  Faith, love, and trust are semantics used to describe these various processes.

    3. Bibowen profile image90
      Bibowenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well, you can argue about who has the burden of proof if you want, but practically speaking, those that have the best arguments that are the most convincing are going to win at the end of the day. So, you can pursue this line of discussion if you want, but this convinces no one.

      Also, it really is a technical question of debate. If a question is posed, both sides bear the burden of proof. Whether or not you realize it, by saying "The Burden of Proof is on Believers" you have now made a declarative statement in which you now bear the burden of proof.

      1. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The best arguments I've heard are the ones by the nonbelievers.  So, I guess we've won.

        And, I believe God is really a pink Unicorn.  But, it's not up to me to show you how that's true...  Please, tell me how you prove a negative.  YOU CAN'T.  Burden of proof lies on the one making the assumption.  Period.

    4. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Since you were quoting me there I will answer this.

      The burden of proof you seek does not come from those who believe. It comes from YOU. It is your choice to believe or not. God does not need to prove Himself through us or anyone else for that matter.

      Like I said before God already told us that the world has enough evidence to believe in seeing His creation.

      If you choose to look at everything around you and deny His existence, so be it. It is YOU who will be judged on that, not me or any other Christian/believer.

      burden of proof is defined as: one who provides through evidence enough to state something as a fact.
      Also to sway ones oppositional views towards one who would provide proof to their own opinions.

      Ok, so here we see it.

      I as a believer am to provide proof.
      I have provided proof through Gods word, but not exclusively to His existence.
      God provides proof through what He has created.

      My opposition to your opinions have to proven as well, and YOU cannot supply me or anyone else for that matter not one shred of proof God does not exist.

      The theory of evolution as it pertains to creation does not provide any proof that God does not exist.
      Yet, in creation we can see a valued argument that there is proof of one who created life, a creator.

      How else do you explain life itself? The living cell. What gave life to that cell?

      Also there is an order to everything. One would logically reason that the order comes not from a naturally occuring event, but from one who has created that order.
      I will explain:
      If I had a bag of apples, and the bag had a hole in it.
      The apples would fall out naturally, not in order.

      But if I were to take the apples and place them in a circle, one would conclude that someone was behind that. Someone had to have created the circle with the apples since again, falling apples do not fall in that formation or order by natural circumstance.

      Reasoning all of this we, as believers come into the knowledge that and provide that as physical proof, that God does exist.

      To debate that argument, or conclude factually, that there is no creator, it is you then who have to provide proof, or have the burden to provide that there is no order to or in the universe.

      You would also have to answer a great many questions that man simply cannot answer. Like the living cell, the first that is, how did that just, "happen"?

      God provided the answer to that question. It happened as a result of Him creating it.

      If you would rather choose to ignore all of creation, all the order to it, all the life in it, then that is your call.
      I have provided enough evidence which you can see clearly that there is an order to everything and there is Life here on this planet. Which demonstrates the proof you seek from me or other believers. But to really believe in the existence of God, all one must do is look for themselves at life, the universe in all its beauty and splendor. In doing that one could logically figure out and come to believe in God.

      But again, it is always your choice. It is a personal choice.

    5. WaffleCheese profile image78
      WaffleCheeseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I love this post. Yes, we should be able to prove God exists, however, the scientific community needs to be more open minded that we need to conduct scientific experiments to prove he exists.

      However, I'm sure the scientific study to prove God exists already has been happening. Science is proving what God already knew, and he's allowing us to find out how the universe works.

      He is revealing himself every time someone learns something new. This revelation is God's gift to those who are ready to receive it. Those that did the work to be worthy of these new truths. God will not deny any honest seeker of truth.

      Any new knowledge is of God. It is simply revealing something new we didn't know before.

      That being said, any scientific proof will be found in traditional scientific experiments.

      Question: How did God create humans?
      Answer: DNA (now let's study it)

      Question: How does God answer prayers?
      Answer: Through physiological synapse responses in the brain affecting hormones throughout the body

      (Insert your question here)
      (Insert your revealed answer here through your research, study, and experimentation)

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Rubbish.

        You are making an assumption based on your ridiculous belief in a magical super being. Now try it the scientific way. lol lol

        1. WaffleCheese profile image78
          WaffleCheeseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's the same thing.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong. You really have no idea about the scientific method whatsoever do you?

            1. WaffleCheese profile image78
              WaffleCheeseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              As one with a vast background in sciene, yes, yes I do.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                LOL

                Dude - you have no clue. Not one. Deary me. How is this applying the scientific method?

                1. WaffleCheese profile image78
                  WaffleCheeseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, when I want to know something, first
                  I address the problem, then I make an observation (and guess what, I don't stop there)
                  Then, I propose my hypothesis, then I devise an experiment to see if my hypothesis was correct. If not, I modify the experiment or hypothesis, or, I create a whole new one and then test that.

                  Then, I draw a preliminary conclusion. Not a final conclusion, because those deny the fact that I can learn more in the future, it would also indicate that refuting such a conclusion would be impossible. Continue to refute it.

                  So... umm, I'm pretty sure it's unwise to make observations and then draw final conclusions based on what you see.

                  There are things called variables you also need to try and eliminate. That only happens through proper experimentation.

                  So, Mark, don't stop at the 'observation stage' and then draw a conclusion. That is 'not applying the scientific method'

                  Make sure you do all the work between those steps. You'll find you are more authoritative in your arguments.

                  If you learn something new from experimentation it's revelation. That's because what was not known before is now known.

                  If I am to prove God exists, I need to use the scientific method. If I am to disprove he exists, I need the same tactic.

                  All sides need to be figured out. Not just one conclusion from someone fully convinced they know everything and nothing else can be learned.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL

                    What observations have you made to ask the question,"How did God create humans?"

                    And what experiments did you perform to determine the answer, "DNA" ?

                    LOLOLO

                    This is so far removed from the scientific method that I suspect you are not even aware of what the scientific method states. lol

            2. atomswifey profile image67
              atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Then you explain to us Mark, where did the first living cell come from? What gave that cell life? Can you offer any scientific explanation for it?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                A magical pink unicorn planted it there. Everyone knows this in my village.

                1. atomswifey profile image67
                  atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  But according to you we are all ignoring science when we believe in God.
                  Whether he be a magical pink unicorn or not is irrelevent.
                  Show your scientific proof to explain the existence of a living cell.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    What I said was - the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is not a pink unicorn. Can you do that?

                    No -= I rest my case. This is proof that the pink unicorn made us.

                  2. 0
                    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No problem.  http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/Bio12Tuat02/Bio12Tuat02_082a(h280).jpg

    6. David Bowman profile image59
      David Bowmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wordscribe, this is an absolutely brilliant examination of a common fallacy commited by believers. I would further add that, even if they were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are the product of a creator god, they've still got all of their work ahead of them in proving that it is the god of their particular religion.

      1. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed, I've pointed that out when they've made the Pascal's Wager argument.  Which God, indeed.  The argument that they "have nothing to lose" doesn't hold much water if they cannot prove their worshiping the "correct God".  What if Allah is the one true God?  What if His punishment is the worst of all?  Could be much worse to worship the "wrong God" than no God at all.  Thanks for your comment.

        1. atomswifey profile image67
          atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I know God exists not entirely because of the Bible. I know He exists because I reason that in creation, having been created, there must then be a creator.

          for science to "prove" its theories about evolution man experiments with things already in existence or having already been creadted, he then takes those things and creates the perfectly structured environment for which to produce a living cell.

          Did you notice there what happens??
          Man creates the environment.
          Man does this as man has yet to ever see, nature doing it by itself. Man has not seen bby natural occurance, the enivornment for such an occurance being formed or made, or it just happening by itself.
          Because things which require an order to, we reason have to be created and designed.

          That is where all their theories fall apart.
          That just because man may be able to someday produce and or create a lving cell is not indicitive to how it started in the first place.

          They take things again, already been created and then use them to prove what? That they can create the environment for such a thing to take place.
          And what about all the evidence that supports the fact that things in nature do not happen as a natural occurance in the way they theorize, if not for the enivronment and circumstances being present?

          Was the earth just here? floating around having been made from a big bang or other natural occurance and then all the enzymes present in it how??
          Where did the emzymes come from?
          Where did the molecules come from? Were they just there? Floating around?
          And if so, what caused them to gather and collect on our planet in such an order as to sustain the life it produced?

          How were these enzymes, molecules etc. being not living, have been gathered and then placed in the order like is given with evolution?

          Have you seen leaves fall in specific order? Have you seen apples fall that way?
          There is a specific order to what you and other evolutionist believe.

          This leads to that, which led to this, which leads to this and so on.
          So prove those theories happened in the beginning.
          Science cannot.
          Science will never be able to prove that.
          And to this extent, Even if science or a scientist were to prove that they have been able to produce a living cell in a lab through the placing of those things which are the building blocks of a living cell, into an environment condusive to creating a primordial soup, the fact remains that THEY took those building blocks and placed them into an environment THEY created to build the soup.
          Which would only then prove that if one did so, one could CREATE the environment to produce a living cell. Not that, that is what happened naturally in the creation of all life, all matter, the universe, etc.

          To believe rather that God spoke them into existence is a much easier concept to grasp. Being God is God and has that ability, unlike man who has to take from what God has already created to produce a similiar outcome in that of a living cell.

          But oh! What a day it will be for all of you if science were to produce that living cell and watch it grow from what it is in that jar to a human and in only how long? A few billion years?
          LOL

          And what about all the other planets? Where are the humans on those planets? Are we to believe that in all the vastness of space that we have discovered and are discovering that WE are the only planet of people to have survvived this big bang and thus the only planet able to sustain ourselves being human?

          But God clearly explains this in creation. That we are special and unique to Him. That this planet was created with our sustainability within it. That not only did He create it, but that He created it for us to be able to live on it. Everything we need to sustain ourselves He created.

          To think that in nature this would too have just sort of happened is ridiculous!

    7. video lost profile image60
      video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder how i missed it, any way, let's start. Also i will use Qur'an as well because you did'nt put any restriction on Qur'an. My posts will not only contain verses of Qur'an but also Science, Logic, Common Sense and things like that. This discussion will involve some questions as well which you have to answer. Also bear in mind that if i become unable to prove the existance of God to you, this will only imply that God does not exists and will not imply that Evolution or Chance are proved. So if i fail, you can not proclaim that Evolution won.   

      Dear,

      I believe in God and you do not believe in God, you want some proof that God exists. Here i will start from logic. As you look around, you will not find anything which does not pass through the process of creation and creator, take for instance the computer system which you are using. If some one comes and tell you this computer is the outcome of itself or evolution from a heap of silcon, copper and gold then surely you will slape him / her and will not believe this illogical theory that a computer can be created itself or by a matter of chance or by evolution THEN WHY YOU BELIEVE ON THE ILLOGICAL THEORIES REGARDING THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE AND HUMANS AND ANIMALS ?????????????????????????? If a complex computer can not become itself then the whole universe is trillions of times more complex than the computer and can not become itself just as the computer can not. Therefore, this very logic which i gave you proves at the first that if some one does not believe on the Ultimate Creator = God = Allah of the Universe, he / she is just decieving itself and is on a big mistake.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOLOLOL

        lol lol lol lol lol

        The first 5LOL award goes to you usmanali. You are a peach. Thank you for proving your god does not exist.

        1. video lost profile image60
          video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Your statements clearly reveal that you are very much impressed by DARK AGES. Enjoy your old age, after all you are going to DIE.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a threat usmanli? I get a lot of threats via email, but that is the first one on a forum. You must be a muslimist.

            I seriously doubt you would speak to me that way in person. wink

      2. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cannot even comment on the lack of knowledge and logic.  I will predict, however you may die much sooner than Mr. Knowles as you are clearly a future contender for the Darwin Awards:

        http://theuniverseexistsformyamusement.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/darwin-awards.jpg?w=459&h=368

        1. video lost profile image60
          video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Wordscribe,

          Surely you do not have any balls (physical as well as logical) to discuss on this topic with me. I am sorry you lost the battle badly and turned away from a good discussion. By the way why you are acting as a twisted tail of Mark Knowles, does he pay you for somehting???

          If you have the courage to defend your filthy thoughts then talk to me on my previous reply over the topic.

          1. 0
            wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, your lack of knowledge and the argument you propose is not worth my energy.  Okay- WRONG.  This is the worst analogy possible.  Plus I don't talk to people who say vicious things to people as you did to Mark Knowles.

            YOU said to Mr. Knowles: "Your statements clearly reveal that you are very much impressed by DARK AGES. Enjoy your old age, after all you are going to DIE." 

            Sick stuff.  Deserving of my Darwin Award presentation.  You make nasty comments, don't expect people to want to engage with you.  These are exactly the kinds of comments that create all of the "inflammation" in this forum.

      3. video lost profile image60
        video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You must reply my very first post for proving the existance of God in the above. You replied my other post regarding the Stephen Hawkings quote, it seems the things in which you kind of debunked atheists get stucked, simply turn your faces in disgrace and evolve into a violent monkeys.

      4. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You want a rebuttal for your "watchmaker argument", here it is.  Tired of responding to illogical arguments from you, as that argument is so old, overused, fallacious, and WRONG.  Taken from Ex Christian Net:

            "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the Universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the Universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the Universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the Universe should have looked like when it started—it would still be up to God to wind up the clock and choose how to start it off. So long as the Universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?—Stephen Hawking



        The Argument From Design is sometimes called the Watchmaker Argument. By analogy, if a watch is found on the beach, it can be assumed that it was created by a watchmaker. So, since the Universe is much more intricate and complex than a watch, then the Universe must have a creator.

        The Watchmaker analogy is flawed. Since a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, and God is claimed to have created the Universe from nothing, these two kinds of creation are fundamentally different. The analogy quickly breaks down.

        Also, a watchmaker makes watches, but if further along the beach we find a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume that was created by the watchmaker. This argument, rather than suggesting one creator, would suggest quite a few creators, each responsible for a different part of creation, or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one.

        Here's the biggest flaw in this argument: We assume the watch was created, or designed, by a watchmaker, because the watch is orderly. The watch stands out in contrast to the natural randomness of the beach. Then the argument takes a flip-flop and says that the Universe is not naturally random, but orderly, and thus it must be designed. So which is it? Does the beach, which represents the Universe in the analogy, show order or randomness? The Watchmaker argument is just plain inconsistent.

        Is it unlikely for life to exist? Perhaps. But how unlikely is it for any of us alive today to exist? Knowing how human reproduction works, with the nearly infinite number of possible genetic combinations that reside in our parents, and in their parents, and so on, back generation after generation, to somehow culminate in the birth of you and me, well, let's compute the chances of that actually happening. Yet, with all those odds against us, here we all are. No matter the odds that might be against it, every week we hear of someone winning the lottery."

        1. Valerie F profile image60
          Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Wordscribe, wouldn't a "self-contained" universe without boundaries be a bit of a contradiction- "without boundaries" suggesting no containment of any kind?

          Also there's that problem of regressing to infinity....

          1. 0
            wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Valerie.  Basically what Stephen Hawking has in mind is that the boundary condition is that there is no boundary/no edge at all.  In that case, the the universe is self-contained, meaning it can't be affected in any way by any outside force or forces.  It can't be destroyed, it can't be created, it would just simply BE.  It would be a universe without a beginning at all.

            Basically he argues a quantum universe:  like the surface of a sphere, time and space would be curved back on itself.  In that case, it cannot have either a beginning or an end.  This is his scientific approach to ending the argument about cause.

        2. video lost profile image60
          video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Wordscribe,

          I was expecting a discussion type of thing but you are just helping yourself only by copying and pasting without reading my posts at all.

          Any way Let us discuss what you copied.

          First of all the quote of Hawking which you mentioned does not rule out that God does not exists. Take the last few lines again in the following

          ...But if the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?—Stephen Hawking

          You see, Hawking actually made a hypothesis by starting the sentence with But if. It's very clear that he made a hypohtesis and showed his curiosity that what will happen then if that becomes the case. He did'nt made a final statement that God does not exists. 

          So, i will be grateful if you dont misunderstand Hawking. Take for instance the following as well.

          Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time.1. Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward.2. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The God says that He was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. God can compress or expand our time line, based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exists in at least two dimensions of time. All this is mentioned by God in Qur’an.

          Later, Hawking tried to get around the concept of two dimensions of time by appealing to "imaginary time." Like imaginary numbers, imaginary time has not comparable physical reality, and so, could not explain what was happening before the creation of the universe. A real, second dimension of time would accomplish the same purpose as imaginary time, but could at least be theoretically possible. In his later book, The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking stated, "Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang."3. This clearly shows that what God had said 1400 years ago in Qur’an that every thing is his creation is 100% true now. Previously it was considered that time is reletive but now you see the scientists are arguing that time is also a creation. Day by day science especially the scientific facts are reconciliating themelve with the definitions and explainations of God (The Ultimate Creator) regarding His creations. That’s the reason most of the top notch scientists could not deny the influence of an Ultimate Super Being whether in the form of theism or pantheism

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

          2. 1998. Particle decays reveal arrow of time. Science 282: 602-603.

          3. Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time, p. 20.


          ****************************************************************

          Now coming to your every week we hear of someone winning the lottery." argument.

          Take for example there are 2 figure lottery numbers from 01-10 alloted to 10 different persons. Now someone always wins a lottery is not due to chance because the winning lottery number will obviously be from 01-10. It will not be below 01 or over 10. If this type of case happens where no one wins the lottery then the organizer can be jailed very easily for cheating with innocents. Therefore, here you find again an ORGANIZER and some RULES which are opposite to chances and evolution.   

          ****************************************************************

          At last, we came on the watch maker argument.

          Dear, i did'nt presented you the watch maker argument. I even made the case easy for you by saying can a computer arise from a heap of silicon, copper and gold (constituents of computer). In the watch maker argument it's difficult for an atheist to make the watch evolve from a dessert or beach sand because these are not the constituants of watch.

          You said watchmaker created the watch from pre existing materials which does not fits with God's creation of universe from nothing and you also said that there are different creators for different things so there need to be different Gods for different creations. Here, at least you agreed upon the different gods for different things and a design and designer for a creation . First, tell me if you agree on both of these analogies then where comes the question of chance, accidental, evolution or atheism ???

          Now look,

          WHEN EVER WE TRY TO MAKE YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF GOD WITH THE HELP OF WATCH MAKER OR COMPUTER ANALOGIES, WE OBVIOUSLY NOT EQUATE THE ATTRIBUTES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE PERSONS INVOLEVED, WATCHMAKER AND THE GOD. WHAT WE PRESENT YOU IN EQUATION IS THE UNDENIABLE PROCESS OF CREATION / INVENTION / ORGANIZATION FOR GETTING THE FINAL PRODUCT. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN A BEING AND A SUPER BEING BUT THE THEME OF CREATION / ORGANIZATION IS UNDENIABLE IN BOTH CASES.

          Here, i am expecting you are convinced about the existance and influence of God.

          1. 0
            wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I stated it was taken from Ex Christian net.  Thanks for your time.

            1. 0
              wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this
          2. video lost profile image60
            video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Wordscribe,

            Now that i have proved the existence of God here above, it's your turn now. As you can not leave the space empty because it's a human instinct to praise some one above and get enlightened from it whether it be God=Allah or evolution=chance=nature=mother nature=great architect of the universe=anti christ.

            If you are convinced about the existence of God then very well, if you need further discussion then go on and if you now say that there is evoution or chance or nature or things like that then you have to prove them right here, right now. You can make use of science, logic and scriptures as well

            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You don't know god video lost , you need to find proof for yourself by meditating.

            2. video lost profile image60
              video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Wordscribe,

              Dont walk away. Stick to the topic above if you have some guts.

              1. mohitmisra profile image61
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                She is a woman, what sort of man challenges a woman by saying have some guts? take it easy usmanali. smile

                1. video lost profile image60
                  video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  why ???

                  lost your gender equality phenomenon here han ???

                  after all men and women are equal. If they can work with each other boldy so they can fight as well. come on wordscribe get up, you brought the case in court, now face it.

                  1. mohitmisra profile image61
                    mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Get to know god for yourself, right now you have only heard or read bout him so you don't have god knowledge yourself and are not qualified to teach.

                    I have debated with wordscribe and even though we have different opinions we are civil with each other. You have decent debating skills which all goes for a toss once you start getting fanatical and ridiculous. smile

              2. video lost profile image60
                video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Wordscribe,

                You said I can cite 100 who went from theist to atheist.  But, it matters not.  This provides no proof of anything.

                Actually you said the above after when i debunked you on page 26. You were lying about Hawking. Now that you can not support your lies you made the argument that it does not matter. For the kind information of your skull it does matter a lot because you know nothing about science and they do a lot and their studies and hard work clearly revealed the existence and influence of God (some believe in the form of theism others as pantheism).

                You said you can provide 100 who went from theist to atheist. i will be waiting for that.

                And if you dont want to discuss on scientists then move forward from the above discussion between me and you.

                1. mohitmisra profile image61
                  mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Usmanali have you seen god or Allah or have you only read and heard about him?

                  Dont you think you need to meditate and find proof for yourself ?
                  The atheist is just being honest while some theists are not.

    8. 0
      Pacal Votanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. And I wouldn't want to prove anyone, as it is in their best interest to believe. smile

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is what wordscribe wrote. !!!  So If you read as you should, you see that she's quoting someone else. For any intelligent person ,is very clear that if wordscribe begins a post with the phrase' The burden of proof is in believers', she wouldn't say the opposite. But maybe you're not intelligent enough ? You're misleading on purpose. And that's all I'm going to say.! You can imagine what I think of you

    9. 0
      ellie1142545posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Faith, you say isn't enough...And to me it is....So without using the Bible, I've said it plain...Faith is all to me....

  2. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Good luck getting them to read the whole thing wordscribe. My bet is you will get few replies outside the profile you have outlined. smile

  3. 0
    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago

    Sorry Mohit, first hand experience of this kind isn't proof. smile

    1. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Science is too limited is something one needs to understand and dying becoming the Light and coming back is right now not in the grasp or scope of science or proof that science requires.
      It is beyond. smile

  4. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Outside the parameters Mohit. smile

    1. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      True but god is beyond, a different dimension altogether that science has not come across .Science does not know the source of life , meaning science is limited in its knowledge.
      Neither does science know anything about death and what happens to the energy of that person.

      You cannot measure god with any instrument and that's where science will always fail to understand god. smile

      God is something one encounters on death. smile

  5. 0
    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago

    Physicist Victor Stenger says it well:  "if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans."  smile

    You said:  Gain enlightenment and you will have your proof like I got mine and its not just a matter of faith but of knowing on a first hand bases. smile

    This is called the "fallacy of personal experience" in logic.

    My goal is to have a discussion without using common fallacies.  And it's merely to demonstrate where the burden of proof lies.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Last year an Australian couple competed their nine year search for the "death gene" They found it.
      Science is able to create life, and we are not far away from being able to stop all diseases by spicing DNA.

      We can already repair many body parts with genetic engineering, and nanotech is growing as fast as processors can run! smile

      1. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What happens when one dies? Is there life after death? What sort of life?

        The Egyptians were supposed to repair damaged body parts and even rejuvenate arms and legs .


        We have a lot more left to learn and that is  one of the reasons of the particle accelerator, figure out whats the building blocks of this universe as we don't know through science. smile

        1. 0
          wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Definitely have a lot more to learn.  But, the scientific method is by far the best and most reliable method we have for finding truth. 

          I don't believe in life after death, mohit.  Game over when you die.

          1. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Earlier on science engulfed spirituality as well and that's the meaning of The Holy Vedas.
            Truth is far greater and bigger than what science knows today.

            I have communicated with dead saints or departed saints and entities something science has absolutely no inkling about.

            I died and came back and that's truth for me, something I share with everyone today and the game is not over as death is just a door to another dimension. smile Something science doesnt teach man smile

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Still outside the parameters smile I had a death experience too, but I will not argue it here. It is outside the rules of this discussion. smile

              1. mohitmisra profile image61
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly so you have to admit many things are beyond the grasp of science today. smile
                I believe you when you say this but will science believe you? That doesn't mean you are wrong because science doesn't have proof for and an explanation for such things. smile
                This proof is too personal an experience and its the same with enlightenment or contact with god.

                Buddha when asked for proof said
                " nature is my witness. " smile

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No it does not mean I am wrong, but it is subjective. smile I have no proof at all of my experience, not even to myself. Sub-conscious responses to low brain oxygen maybe? I have more than a reasonable grasp of matters pertaining to thought and mind, yet I can prove nothing at all by relating my experience in that state. smile

                  1. mohitmisra profile image61
                    mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I have no proof also for my enlightenment, my work may be ranked over Bibles and Qurans and that's one of the best ways I can express myself but it still doesn't count as tangible proof such as science demands. smile

                2. 0
                  wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  But, does that mean I automatically put on my "God glasses"?  Just because certain things haven't been explained yet doesn't mean the logical conclusion is the existence of a deity. It just means not YET.

                  Additionally, people have often attributed events that have a natural cause as an explanation for 'miracles' performed by a God.  It's because they have their "belief" glasses on.

                  1. mohitmisra profile image61
                    mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I dont want you to believe in god unless you find the proof for yourself, I am not threatening you in any way .
                    What I do is say look I am as humans as you or anyone and  I  come from a city and not the mountains or jungles and if I can meditate and find god so can you. smile

                  2. video lost profile image60
                    video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    what is natural cause ??? if for the sake of argument God does not exists, it does not mean that NATURALISM is the thing behind. As you claimed natural cause to be the explanation of miracles then you have to prove it as you require proof in case of God.

                    Now proof your naturalism or natural causes theories (which obviously you can not, you just blindly believe on the stuff whcih favours the sickness of your mind)

            2. Pearldiver profile image86
              Pearldiverposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Interestingly... 'Near Death' experiences are Only regarded as that: NEAR Death.  Physically Dying..(Flatline) is a very different scenario.. in which I agree with Mohit on (also having 'passed on' and then returned.).
              I consider that this sort of topic seems to be as contentious as UFOs. If walking in the light to a group of entities (shapes of energy) means that you have meet the departed, gone to heaven, or travelled unwittingly to Mars.. Then I too have been there. Did I meet God? No... But I left an empty body vessel behind me on the trip. And was Sent Back to it by the energy within the light.
              Personal Experience - From an astral traveller who is not nutty!

              1. 0
                wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No doubt your body goes through many physiological and chemical reactions when it's dying.  These may certainly affect the brain and its perception of something extraordinary happening.  To me the light is just that, a physiological phenomenon.  Just because you've flatlined doesn't mean the brain doesn't very temporarily retain enough function to have an experience such as this.  The entities you saw were part of this experience.

                I know you're not nutty, Peardiver.  I just think there's another explanation.  smile

                1. Pearldiver profile image86
                  Pearldiverposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Gee Gosh I've always wondered lol

                  Perhaps the other explanation is: I Met God lol

              2. mohitmisra profile image61
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Pearldiver, have you read The "Book Of Five Rings"- Miyamoto Musashi"- one of the ultimate and undefeated samurai warriors who lived roughly eight hundred years ago.?

                The Japanese master director Akhiro Kurasawa has made a movie of him and the philosophy is supreme and is still one of the highest ranked books in religion and philosophy.
                I think you will love it as I see your fondness for the samurai warrior. smile

                1. Pearldiver profile image86
                  Pearldiverposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes Mohit I must read this... He also wrote (for Samurai) on the art of swordsmanship as the grand master.... THank you for that.

                  1. mohitmisra profile image61
                    mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You are more than welcome Pearldiver smileI am also very fascinated by the samurai. smile

            3. dingdong profile image59
              dingdongposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You need a psychiatrist!

          2. video lost profile image60
            video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What truth ??? I am not against science but i am surely against you who misuse theories for supporting their Pagan Dogmas of ISMs.

            For your kind information, the science which you are so proud of is against you and is not able to build a pyramid. Infact, science could not even imagine how these ancient egyptians built those pyramids when science was not so advanced as it's now.

      2. video lost profile image60
        video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What about thousands of meteors around earth, how will you dodge them if they were ordered to attack on earth.

    2. video lost profile image60
      video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What Physicist Victor said is totally illogical and out of mind. It is not necessary to be detectable by scientific means in order to prove ones existance. For example, science recently discovered about MICROWAVE, previously it was unknown and indetectable which does not mean that MICROWAVES did not existed before it's detection or discovery.

      So if some one claims to be there and you are unable to detect the thing does not mean that the thing does not exist. The limitations are related to you and the science which is not that advanced to detect that thing.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What is hard to detect is any sense in your attempt at analogy! lol

  6. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Yes, find the "god" particle. We live in exciting times!

  7. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Show me this pink unicorn! lol

  8. 0
    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago

    I have faith, Earnest.  Prove to me it doesn't!!!  It just doesn't exist in this dimension.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh I see. smile Perhaps a quick DNA sample? smile

  9. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    That was a kind gesture Mohit. smile

    1. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks earnesthub I like being nice and don't like myself when I am rude. smile

    2. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mohit always has kind gestures.  He's a very level headed gentleman.

      1. mohitmisra profile image61
        mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And you are undoubtedly very lovable. smile

      2. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        agreed. smile Like many thinkers, he is a bit "out there" sometimes though. smile

        1. mohitmisra profile image61
          mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol   lol   lol

          Peace and thanks and I know you both don't believe in god but never the less- God bless. smile

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I accept the blessing of any gods that do not attempt to threaten me, providing the blessing does not come dressed as other than what it is, and even then it must be from someone real. smile Thank you Mohit, smile My best wishes to you also. smile

          2. 0
            wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Peace to you, too.  And Pink Unicorn bless.  lol

            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lol   lol

            2. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well I reckon apart from a few well known ... nay... notorious loonies that about raps em up!

  10. Shaul Stein profile image60
    Shaul Steinposted 7 years ago

    The proof is what can been seen.

    Go outside and see it.

    No more proof needed.

  11. 0
    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago

    Plenty more needed, as this is not proof.  This is a lazy argument called the argument from improbability.  Richard Dawkins says it best:  "Not only is it wrong to assume that deliberate design is the only alternative to chance. Deliberate design is not an alternative to chance at all. The only known alternative to chance as an explanation for living complexity is natural selection. And, to those that understand it , it is a brilliantly successful alternative."

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      With almost unanimous support, apart from the usual fundies! smile

  12. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    So - we have 2 basic arguments from the religionists:

    1. Proof is not needed.
    2. Asking for proof means that you have to prove there is no god.

    Powerful words indeed. lol

  13. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Mankind will see what they want to see.
    And will blind themselves to what they do not want to see.
    It is like being color blind. I see blue and you see it as green. How can you scientifically prove to me that I am wrong.

    The most important question is ...WHY ?? is it so important to others, for  ME  to see it as green as they do?

    Does it have to do with self affirmation? to remove their doubts ?

    This is not intended as an attack but an honest Question.
    Why is it ???

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I could care less what you see. I do object to it when you tell me I should see the same thing though. So - how about you agree to stop telling me there is a god an I agree to stop laughing at you. How does that sound?

      I have slowly come to the conclusion that believers have realized how duped they have been - and they need to get as many as possible on the bandwagon so they feel less foolish.

      What do you think?

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I see green midgets, they are everywhere yikes

        Hi there Mark smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yup - every time I turn around - there they are. But - just because I cannot prove they are there in any real sense - I have investigated the proofs of there existence and am satisfied that I have proven to myself that they are there, and anyone who does not see them really needs to be able to conclusively prove that I am imagining them before going any further.

          So for now - I think we can accept this proof that green midgets are everywhere and actually running the world until such times as conclusive proof is presented that they are not there.

          And no proof will be good enough because I say what constitutes proof - and you don't have any. lol lol

      2. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think that believers have been mis=quoting scripture for so long that they can no longer make a viable argument using their interpretations as proof. I believe that the beast that John saw rising up out of the sea was religiosity. This beast has been adulterating the truth. How would you like it if your children made up such untruths about you that no one could possibly believe that you existed at all. I believe that something like that has happened over the past 1600 years.   

        What is the absolute truth ??   I do not know. I do know that what they are teaching in sunday school is not what is written in scripture.

  14. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    Interesting that you should cite legal presumed innocence in relation to proving God exists.

    Wouldn't that apply to believers? The burden of proving that they are liars, brainwashed, or somehow intellectually and emotionally deficient just for believing in God rests with the people making such accusations against them.

    I do not believe that faith is by definition blind. As I've said elsewhere, I have read and investigated various proofs for God's existence and found them sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. Others don't find these proofs sufficient, but that doesn't mean there is no proof at all.

  15. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    There is no real burden of proof for anyone. Regardless of the subject matter, I believe that it is impossible to prove anything to anyone if they do not want to believe what ever it is. I would love to stay and continue this conversation but I have to go and make a living.

  16. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 7 years ago

    PROOF?
    We are here. Proof enough, I would have thought.
    Something (all known matter, energy, space time, etc ad inf.) came out of nothing! Caused by NOTHING, for the purpose of NOTHING. Generating discussions about things like this which are meaningless , all by random chance, and natural selection?
    Who are the real "duped", and believers in fairy tales.
    If no reality of God exists, who would, and why would they give a TOSS? Your very request of proof shows a "need to know", WHY?

  17. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    So, Mark, prove that I am a liar, insane, or stupid for believing in God.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Tell you what - you prove that you are not. lol

      All you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof from yourself to me.

      Why?

      1. atomswifey profile image67
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No Mark, you are the accuser, the burden of proof then lies with you

    2. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL I am waiting for his answer as well

  18. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Semantics. "You cannot prove I am crazy therefore I am sane." lol

    Therefore my belief in an invisible super being is rational.

    lol lol lol

    Why are you so desperate to justify your irrational beliefs? - that is a more sane question.

    1. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Irrational beliefs?

      So it is irrational to believe that there is an order to the universe? And that in that because we know things are in a specific order, and that something which has an order could not and does not happen in order naturally, that one would rationally conclude that there must be a creator. That is an irrational belief? I don't get it Mark.

      Again, you are accusing those of us that believe with being irrational, please provide proof of that.

    2. Valerie F profile image60
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Mental health, rationality, and intellectual capacity can be scientifically proven. That belief in God is in and of itself irrational is merely an opinion and is as of yet scientifically unverified. In my opinion, it takes a lot of blind faith either way to take as fact what isn't yet proven.

      Now in case you say that I take as fact what's yet to be proven by believing in God, first of all, as I've said, there is proof available. I find it convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I would not be a good skeptic if I didn't consider the possibility that I might draw the wrong conclusions. Still, I believe that being wrong in believing in a Supreme Being whose greatest command is to be charitable to one another is better than being right about such a being, the moral authority, and the requirements not existing.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry - you are being irrational again. What was the question? Oh yes - you lost it in this sea of BS. Well done. wink

        1. Valerie F profile image60
          Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So do you think it is rational to believe there is no good, no moral authority greater than humanity, and offer no proof to back up your claim?

          Is it rational to accuse people of lying or being irrational without offering any proof? You make an accusation. You back it up.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LOLOLO

            As usual - you are twisting and turning to avoid the logical and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

            Sorry you religion thinks that lying and using semantics in this fashion is worth while "moral authority" and yes - the morals I see you displaying in no way suggest to me that you are a representative of a higher power.

            1. Valerie F profile image60
              Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I never claimed I was. Meanwhile, I don't go around laughing at people or calling them or their opinions irrational for daring to believe differently while still not coming up with a solid rebuttal.

              I hate repeating myself. I also hate copying and pasting directly from my books. If you want the proofs that convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, I have listed their authors, and it's entirely within your capacity to look them up if you wish to be bothered. If you don't want to do so, I won't force you.

              But if you accuse me of lying, it's your responsibility to either back it up or back off. The original poster brought presumed innocence into this. Try applying it instead of assuming that everyone with a different opinion or different perspective is "irrational."

    3. 0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i agree with this statement. if a person is religious and believes, although they themselves have never seen God and frankly no one ever will because supposedly anyone who looks on the face of God would probably die from the exprience.

      i have often wondered why, if a person believes in UFO's, or haunted houses, or some other extraterrestrial or spiritual being, they are considered delusional or insane, but religious people who talk to God on a regular basis and who believe that he answers their requests as long as they wear a St. Christopher medal around their neck or tithe regularly, are not considered delusional at all.

      there is a difference, in my opinion, between spiritual people and religious people.

      spiritual people, i have found, are quietly reassured about the Divine presence and happy with themselves and their belief system, and respect others who don't believe as they do. even those who do not believe in God can still be spiritual.

      religious people, i have found from my own experience, are somewhat smug and even arrogant about their inside track to God and Jesus, and love to let you know how you will suffer in the afterlife and they won't because they got born again. i mean, so you have a direct line to God - good for you. be happy then and don't ask your fellow human to justify his beliefs.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        In a nutshell! smile

        1. 0
          cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/basic/smileyvault-happyyes.gif



          in my experiene, most of those smug about their beliefs have been of the Christian persuasion, but you're right, smugginess and snobbiness can afflict anyone.

          1. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            cosette- I have seen god or rather died became god-The Light and came back .Its called enlightenment and has happened to man since the god alone knows when.smile
            Every human will become god its a matter of time smile

            1. 0
              cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              really?

              that is an incredible statement. i myself believe that we are all connected - plants, animals, people, even stars and planets, and i think mathematics and physics explains all of it although we don't know all of the answers yet because we haven't finished evolving.

              i don't understand how we can become God when we die. i don't think we even see God when we die - i think God allows us though, to see things mortals can't, as a sort of gift, and then when we are there our eyes are fully opened and we know everything with a Divine wisdom when God enters our consciousness and then we finally have true enlightenment. i think he allows us to go where the Hubble went and actually BE in a place like this:

              http://i29.tinypic.com/2ldiqsl.jpg

              then we reenter life on Earth again with the wisdom from the previous life, although we forget most of what we perceived when God was inside of us say, at that star nursery.

              no one taught me this - i just think it when i think about the afterlife, etc.

              anyway i would like to hear more about your experience. not because i believe it but because i am interested in people who have gone through some extraordinary experience. if you don't want to answer here feel free to email me.

              best regards.

              1. mohitmisra profile image61
                mohitmisraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                This is my work to share my experience and spread god knowledge I am a poet.

                I was working as a Navigating officer in the Merchant Navy and would close eyes and focus on a star or point between my eyebrows with my eyes closed in order to improve my concentration powers.

                When my concentration became perfect I found myself racing too and fro from the light, with every inhalation I would race in this tunnel  towards the light and with every exhalation I would race away from it.I understood this point of light to be my source.

                Then came a time where I didn't really want anything and I let go while practicing one pointed concentration.I raced at incredible speed towards this point of light and then it became very big like the size of the moon or sun.
                The next thing I know is I went into this light and exploded into another dimension altogether where everything was this brilliant light with no beginning and no end and it was a state of supreme bliss and I was this Light with no beginning or end - god- the Light.
                Then I thought of myself and the moment did I was back. smile

                1. 0
                  cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  so you astrally projected?

                  whoa dude.

                  p.s. atomswifey, just because something is called a "theory" doesn't mean it is invalid or wrong. if you knew about scientific method you would understand just how profoundly thorough it is - scientists aren't out to disprove the existence of God - they are about seeking the truth. i don't understand why Christians are so afraid of scientists...to the point where they give their children special, censored, homogenized textbooks.

                  at home, where no one can give them any new ideas.

                  p.p.s. if i wanted to prove the existence of God, i would just hand someone a flower and let them make up their own mind.

  19. atomswifey profile image67
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    All I am sking Mark to do is apply the science he so believes in to conclude there is no God.

    And he cannot because there is no science there to be applied.

    Also, when applying science and natural laws he is then only to find evidence which is contrary to his belief.

    Why? Because we know for scientific fact there is an order to everything in the universe.

    For order to exist in the universe, it would have had to been created.

    We know this because as I have explained, order does not happen naturally. If it did then apples, leaves etc would fall into formation, an order, naturally.

    We also know there are living cells, we see them in everything that does live.

    One would then obviously agree since cells are created from other cells, meaning they are not man made nor created that the first living cell had to be present for other living cells to form. So,
    is it then logical to presume it (the first living cell) was created by God? Well, I find it has not been created by man. was it "created" at all?
    To answer this look at nature once again the order of things in nature.

    The first lving cell was responsible for all of life on this planet. So one could reasonably assume it was not by nature alone this came to be, since nature would have had to be living itself to have created it or happened it to be.

    Too, we can argue or assume that the living cell in all its intricasies and DESIGN, its order, one would conclude logically that because of its design which man nor nature has been able to produce for themselves, that a being created it. Someone who had the knowledge to create something like that, someone who had the will to create it.

    You cannot really expect anyone to believe you Mark that a living cell was not designed, can you?
    And even if you can, taking into account all that we know about cells, would that be a reasonable or logical conclusion?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I thought we were talking about the burden of proof.

      No? There is no burden of proof? The very definition of irrational.

      Really - buy a dictionary. Please.

  20. David Bowman profile image59
    David Bowmanposted 7 years ago

    http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/images/views.jpg

    1. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Taken partly from http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolut … tion11.htm I expand on this:

      * Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
      * Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
      * Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
      * Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.

      Wow lots of speculation there to make it all fact huh?

      These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life.
      Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:

      Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
      Funny though I think it is for it is rather simple to argue that so many complex things happening in perfect order, just sort of happened that is by natural process of events. Which we know things in perfect order that way do not just, happen naturally.
      That to me does not make any sense in any of it.
      That too in those theories you would have to take into account all that is lving in the entire universe to have created the soup in the first place!
      That there then must have been a soup of non-living matter or even living matter itself in the creation of the universe, not just the earth, for any of it to have happened that way, the way science is trying to say it happened that is.

      Science can never answer this question, not ever! Where did any matter, bacteria, enzymes etc. whatsoever whether living or not come from? Where did all the the enzymes, the enzyme that is capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all the building blocks for those enzymes, an enzyme that can build a cell wall, An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction, Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes
      Where did all that come from?

      I suppose that was just sort of,...uhm,.. there?, floating around until......what? A big bang brought it all together to create life here on earth?
      Ok.
      So in these experiments to prove this theory THEY take enzymes and the like fuse them into a soup and are able to create a living cell? Not yet.
      The very experiment proves the existence of God or atleast a being to have put all of that together.
      The building blocks of life that is.
      Since they cannot prove nor has anyone ever seen it just happen in nature, one would have to create the environment for it.

      They take matter, enzymes etc. which already exist to make their assumptions, not taking into account that THEY have done so. Someone has taken all the so called necessary building blocks of inanimate or nonliving organisms and placed them into an environment to grow or evolve into living cells. They create in other words, the soup, the environment etc.

      Or is this the truth behind life:

      Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.
      Created the first enzymes
      The first bacteria, the soup if that is how He created it.
      etc. etc. etc.
      Which if you adopt the belief that God created the earth, as it says in the Bible that He did so by speaking them into existence. All that is life all that was not living.
      True it is that man can now take that which has already been created and then assume whatever he likes according to his perception and views, experiments and science.


      But then again, in order for you or anyone else for that matter to believe in these theories, one then would have to believe that this soup, all the enzymes and ciurcumstances surrounding it were all just there, floating around, without giving any regard whatsoever in asking or even coming close to answering how the circumstance, the soup, the enzymes, the DNA, existed or came to be by what????????

      All the complex super systems of the universe even enough to create one, a person , a human so complex as we are and all of life everywhere. That to come to any of this point, we would first have to agree that it did not happen by chance. That the first enzymes were not just there floating around. How else do you explain them in the first place?????

      This is all so irrational I cannot even begin to explain.

      1. David Bowman profile image59
        David Bowmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So, you find it hard to believe all of what you stated above in regard to abiogenesis and yet, you find it completely believable to accept that a magic man magically spoke things into existence. Very logical.

        I would also like to add the fact that you are not a biochemist and therefore, are not qualified to tell anyone that abiogenesis is an impossibility.

  21. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    THE  BIg BAND THEORY
    Creator said let it be so
    BANG THERE IT IS
    the living spirit moved across the face of the waters.
    Life abounded; bacteria amoeba whatever etc
    Lower forms of life did in fact evolve.
    Creator created man;   dna locked in place.
    Missing link found.
    Creator had communication with mankind
    Mankind calls Creator by the name of GOD.
    God communicates with all that will listen
    And to   ...heck ... with the rest.
    "the rest"  says that is unfair.
    "the rest" says that there is no  GOD for me!
    therefore there must not be a GOD for anyone
    I have spoken it, therefore it must be true.
    PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG. IF I HAD PROOF THEN I MIGHT LISTEN
    We must listen first and then we hear the quiet still voice.
    If you know that there is no voice to hear then you will never here it. You have proven that there is no GOD for YOU

    However I do agree with Mark that the description commonly inflicted upon the creator does not exist. Santa Clause he is not. Omnipresent YES, All loving,Yes never punishing NOT.provoked to anger YES  fulfills my definitions  NO.  satisfies his own definitions  YES   What those are ?  I don't know.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No - you do not agree with me.

      lol

  22. dahoglund profile image84
    dahoglundposted 7 years ago

    Theologians have had numerous attempts to prove the existence of God and they can be useful in confirming one's own faith. However they will not force someone to believe who does not want to believe.Basically you either believe or you don't. Although I think one can choosse to believe as William James contended

  23. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    Hi wordscribe !! smile Posts are too long in here !! I love synthesis

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I know...  My OP was ridiculous.  Sorry  sad  How are you today?

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It'n not ridiculous at all !!  You're very intelligent. Shame the contenders. I can't say the same big_smile

  24. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    What is proof? Everything that we see, hear, taste smell or touch is subject to our own interpretation

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And what is the connetion between your 5 senses and religion ?

    2. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Still, in science there is no such thing as 100 percent certainty. The evidence for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, for example, or the Theory of Evolution is so overwhelming that scientists say the probability of it being true approaches 100 percent. Let me know if you don't believe in the theory of gravity, if you will.

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure he knows that one, as he's falling all the time ! lol

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I have always thought gravity should be renamed to grabity, I really think it would be self explanatory then! smile

          1. tantrum profile image60
            tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think he should re-name himself Brainwashpower

            1. 0
              wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You guys are cracking me up.  Grabity, I'm using that one, Earnest.  lol

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Careful wordscribe, my mangy ego could get loose and I may start flooding you with them! Many words in my vocab have been "modified" over the years. smile

                1. tantrum profile image60
                  tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    More. More !!! Another example big_smile

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  25. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    The best proof that God exist is totally wrapped up in Jesus and if you dont believe in Him no amount of explaining will be conclusive enough. But here is a simple test the bible offers, that everything has the seed within itself to reproduce. Check out the apple, the orange, and everything that exist and you will discover it is true. Yes even us humans. The bible makes another claim that God created the heavens and the earth and they testify of Him. Thats an amazing claim. It also predicted how the world would end and also it predicted 2300 years into the future by Daniel and everything that Daniel has said came to past. All of the bible writers claim they got this information from God. Perhaps there is something to this God thing that you have yet to explore.

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        For me the God thing is nothingness. Nothing to explore in there, for me,  thanks !

  26. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    if the God thing means nothing to you then it is proof postive that you are not looking for an answer you are just having an unfruitful conversation

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol I'm not looking for answers. I'm just giving you my opinion. If you don't like it, I can't care less big_smile

  27. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    The theory of evolution is just that a theory it was never meant to offer proof of anything. And if it is it falls way short of proof. But the bible says everything produces after its own kind and it still occurs today. dogs have puppies and not kittens and cats have kittens and not puppies.

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Funny stuff! Laurence Moran, a PHd from Princeton and professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto couldn't say it any better:  "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
      Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."  So, again when you can suspend apples, we can talk.

  28. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    The things that are seen testify of the things unseen but if your sight is limited to what you see then your darkness is manifested. When your sight moves beyond the natural you will catch the vision of the unseen. Because something is unseen, does it mean that it does not exist. There are microscopic organism that exist but cant be seen with the naked eye. Is that proof of its non-existance. Not so, with the aid of a powerful microscope we have learn of there existance. Perhaps you need to step outside of your limited eye sight to see the invisible God that does exist and makes claims that he made you.

    1. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very right you are!

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So  we will need a microscope to see God ! lol Him being so small....

        1. atomswifey profile image67
          atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh you will see Him one day Tantrum. With your own human eyes, but it is with your spiritual ones you are to see Him with today. Having not those, you cannot see.

          1. tantrum profile image60
            tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I hope I never see him, being such a cruel God. anyway, as I don't believe I'm saved !!. I'M SAVED !! You should be happy ! big_smile

            1. atomswifey profile image67
              atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You put alot of hope in that statement. As to you being saved as a result of your disbelief?
              You sure better not hope so, but know so!

              1. tantrum profile image60
                tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I only hope that you'd be happy. That will make a better person of yourself ! big_smile

                1. atomswifey profile image67
                  atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I feel nothing but sadness concerning those that would choose to disbelieve and continue in that.
                  There is no happyness in that Tantrum.
                  You can laugh now, you can smile and be cheery now, have all the happyness in the world NOW
                  But what about then?
                  How is that happyness going to show when you face Him? How are you going to be happy then?

                  Only if you are one of the ones having recieved forgiveness and grace, having recieved a pardon. Then yes, you can be happy in that. You can have that joy!
                  But only then.
                  Only then.
                  Only if and when.

                  So make fun of, mock and snicker, God and His people until the day comes that you are shut up!
                  And believe me tantrum, that day is coming.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, take that Heathen!!  Us righteous Christians will laugh while you suffer.  Ha Ha

                  2. tantrum profile image60
                    tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You're so merciless, that I think that day is coming, yes! But for you ! Something must be very wrong with your life. Why don't you seek advice with your priest ? big_smile   or your preacher ? big_smile

                  3. 0
                    wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    This epitomizes the reason for the evolution (yes, I dared to use the "E" word) of the growing resentment nonbelievers have towards belivers.  Full of threats, you will burn in Hell, you're not really happy because you haven't received forgiveness.  These empty threats only perpetuate the friction.

                    I started an honest, rational, logical thread that simply made the statement that it's on the onus for believers to provide the proof for God.  There's really no rational argument otherwise.  No one wants to examine this, however.  The religionists continue to attempt to illogically shift the burden of proof back to the nonbelievers.  The OP, if you read it, have any powers of rationality or logic demonstrates that this is so:  it's up to those claiming the positive existence of something to provide proof/evidence.  No one seems to want to touch that with a 10 foot pole.  The only response I got claimed this:  "Also, it really is a technical question of debate. If a question is posed, both sides bear the burden of proof. Whether or not you realize it, by saying "The Burden of Proof is on Believers" you have now made a declarative statement in which you now bear the burden of proof."  Oh, brother.  It's so simple!  If I claim pink unicorns exist, it's up to me to prove now.  Not up to you, the nonbeliever to prove why they don't.  Logic 101, people- you can't prove a negative. 

                    Does anyone have a relevant point to make regarding the subject of this thread?

  29. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    The five sense are the five avenues to the mind and if your five senses have mis-information then it will be stored for future reference in your brain. Religion does not totally depend upon its five senses. It also uses its six sense of FAITH, that carries them beyond the limitations of the five senses. Mr. tanturn

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You shouldn't be speaking to me . As I'm a non believer, this is  an unfruitful conversation  big_smile

      1. atomswifey profile image67
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Jesus Himself spoke to nonbelievers Tantrum!
        He ate with them, and healed them, and conversated with them. This is something the pharisees could not understand. How someone could take part in going to ones house who was considered, unclean or a sinner and eat with them etc.

        And as far as the "fruitless" conversation goes, I fail to see where speaking about salvation is fruitless to anyone.

        How do you know that even you tonight, tom. the next day, the day after that will not come to believe and recieve salvation as a result of this conversation or any other for that matter?

        And this being a forum, where not just YOU take part in, there may be some others reading who would come to know and believe. That would certainly not make this conversation on here "fruitless" either.

        Jesus replied to the pharisees this way concerning speaking to and or eating with nonbelievers:
        "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (NIV)

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            This was an ironic reply for washpower. lol thank you anyway for your concern big_smile

  30. Sybil Marie profile image81
    Sybil Marieposted 7 years ago

    Well I think that the proof thing has to be done on a personal basis you know.
    For me it was about doing an experiment and taking the Data.
    I am a recovering Alcoholic sober nine years now. I was 40 when I got sober.I had tried so many times on my own, my willpower couldn't do it, therapy couldn't do it I was stuck, I just could stay stopped! My life was pretty much a mess.
    I was told "You've tried everything else what do have to loss  give God a try". That morning I woke up and asked for help to God (Whoever that might be) and when I wanted a drink I asked again. Amazingly enough I didn't drink the whole day. The next day I tried the same experiment again, again it worked, and it has continued to work.
    It has continued to work for me, that is my proof for me.

  31. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    Mr. Tantrum please forgive me for mis-spelling your name. But you have proved my point on how small your vision is, and how much darkness is manifested with your limited sight. Before you even came into existence the bible predicted that there would be people that would come alone and question the existence of God. Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools. It says the fool has said in his heart that there is no GOD. The car has an owners manual, but who owns man, and where is his manual? Did he just show up? I submit to you that an ant is much smaller than a man, and God is greater than them both.

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh S°°t !! I knew I need a new pair of glasses !!

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        With a pair of glasses. Or a microscope, being God so small it's impossible to see. big_smile

      2. 0
        wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No worries, Tantrum.  They have some cool, stylin' "God glasses" at Walgreens now for $1.99.  cool

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          cool !!!!!!!

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How could anyone argue with that logic? yikes

  32. 60
    mdwashpowerposted 7 years ago

    There you go again the natural man cannot receive the things of God because he is carnal minded. And if you cannot understand the natural things that i have share how will you ever understand spiritual things. They would appear to be only foolishness to you but you are not alone. May God Bless you to have your eyes magnified with his spiritual glasses and telescope so that you might see. Can you see Orion with your naked eye? Maybe Not. But it does exist. And that is where the bible predicts that Jesus will come thru, and every eye shall see Him.

    1. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN!!!!

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        RAmen! tongue

  33. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    I have found that smugness is not limited by any stretch to the religiously affiliated. I have dealt with snobbish behavior from people in religious, generically "spiritual," agnostic, and atheist camps alike.

    This has only solidified my belief that no one group of people as a whole is any better or any more enlightened than the other.

  34. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    All animals are equal. but some are more equal than others lol

  35. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I love nonsense! John Lennon wrote nonsense verse and stories.

    One he wrote was "At the Denis"    here is a line from it.

    "Lie back in the neck chair madman and I'll excrete it."

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol You gave me an idea ! lol  I'll begin writing nonsense poetry !

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Great! I will certainly be a reader. smile

  36. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago
  37. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Good grief !

    If ever there was a moment when I had my convictions that religion produces nothing but ignorant, aggressive, hate mongers confirmed, this thread is it.

    Not one single solitary christian on this thread has given a straight answer to the proposition. Semantics, lying about how many bogus "science degrees" one has; attacking other people for their lack of belief in eternal pain and suffering. lol

    Seriously - all to avoid the truth that if you are making a statement that there is a god - this puts the burden of proof on you.

    Merely saying "No, no. If you want proof that means the burden of proof has shifted to you for saying there is no god," just reinforces the fact that you people are not making a rational decision. Or able to make a rational argument.

    Why not just say - "it is a matter of faith, and I cannot prove god exists."?

    Why not? - Because your beliefs are all about conflict and hatred and that would mean backing down from an argument - And Jesus doesn't like people who turn the other cheek. Oh - wait a minute................

    Thanks christians - I knew I was right. wink

    1. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I gave you proof Mark. I showed you where the proof is. You ignoring it is not anyones fault but your own.

      I showed you where science goes wrong with their theories and why it is obvious then to take creation and offer it as proof He exists.

      1. blue dog profile image80
        blue dogposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why not just say - "it is a matter of faith, and I cannot prove god exists."?

        Why not? - Because your beliefs are all about conflict and hatred and that would mean backing down from an argument - And Jesus doesn't like people who turn the other cheek. Oh - wait a minute................

        Thanks christians - I knew I was right. wink

        I gave you proof Mark. I showed you where the proof is. You ignoring it is not anyones fault but your own.

        I showed you where science goes wrong with their theories and why it is obvious then to take creation and offer it as proof He exists.

        ah, the dawning of a new day.  thank god.  or someone.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOLOLO

      Thanks once again. Can anyone say irrational, aggressive hate monger? wink

      And I am going to make your invisible proof disappear into very tiny words as befits their uselessness.

      1. jonmarsh profile image79
        jonmarshposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL

      2. 0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        We must understand that mark all the other evolutionary atheist have nothing left, but their evolution religion so except them to defend their beliefs like the many other false religions(muslims, mormons, and new age), except evolutionist tend to be more violent(hilter, stalin, poi, eugenics labs etc.) but unlike the others they try to call their religion “science“. The biggest fallacies in the evolutionary atheist argument the are a philosophical pseudo scientific religion with no base they have no logical answer for how it all began, where did the information came from, but without a superior answer to that they’ll still proclaim there is no God. It’s a dizzying intellect. There burden of proof will alway be on the nonbeliever. Always, I'm still waiting mark.

    3. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      MALARKY!  I suppose you reject the theory of gravity as well, seeing as how it's just a theory and all.

  • My Friend Shiyloh profile image61
    My Friend Shiylohposted 7 years ago

    I think if this was lived out, people might still want to deny a deity, but they could not deny love, a love that transcends us all.
    Because this, requires no proof.


    Love is a rose, so beautiful to behold, so painful to be careless with.
    Love utters nothing in vain.
    So when you hear love, it remains forever with you.
    Love does have a voice, a sound, a tone, a melody.
    Silence is music ~ let us go study it.


    ~Shiyloh~

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Shiyloh, Shiyloh, Shiyloh.  You do have a good heart, I can tell.  smile

      Love is a bunch of hormones and monoamines, like dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin.  They're controlled by a chemical called phenylethylamine.  Evolution explains love beautifully.  In primitive hunter/gatherer societies, it was advantageous for for the mother and father to remain together in order to care for their young.  Without love, it's far less likely that this couple would stay together.  Love increases the chances parents will continue caring for their young when things get hard.  With love, the chances that children will be loving themselves is much greater, which will make them loving parents (advantageous for survival of their young).  Love is a bond that's expressed to extended family and friends, who assist in caring for young (it takes a village).  The humans that didn't love were less likely to reproduce, those that did love were much more likely to reproduce.  Love was literally passed on in the genes.  In essense, evolution has chosen love and programmed us to love.

      Love is hormones and brain activity.  Oxytocin is produced during sex and breastfeeding.  It behaves as a brain neurotransmitter and can produce very intense feelings of love and attachment to another.  smile

  • My Friend Shiyloh profile image61
    My Friend Shiylohposted 7 years ago

    That is a from of love, yes.

    And a good one too.



    It takes more than that kind of love to love the unlovable.



    ~Shiyloh~

  • earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Ageist, sexist, bigot, zealot, the one with the lot! smile Oh and paranoid to boot. smile

  • mobilephone guide profile image60
    mobilephone guideposted 7 years ago

    actually, the church funded a lot of scientific progress. the church doesn't deny evolution. christian schools teach the concept of evolution.

  • Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Hey blue god, you messed up the thread. Edit your post please, and make sure quotes tags match. smile

  • atomswifey profile image67
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    Thanks once again. Can anyone say irrational, aggressive hate monger?

    The questin mark there is fitting.
    Where in anything that I wrote did I prove myself to be irrational and or agressive or hateful?

    I believe your thoughts and logic pertaining to God or the lack of one are irrational.
    Your words calling Him if He does exist, small etc. does invoke your hatred of Him.
    Your words of distain towards believers can be construed as hateful or agressive in nature.

    Does any of that mean that you yourself are irrational, hateful or aggressive?

    "Judge not, lest you be judged", there Mark

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lying will not help. I know your religion teaches you that lying is what god wants, but:




      Or is that a rational, loving statement? lol lol

      1. atomswifey profile image67
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        and where did I lie
        And rational yes, loving yes. In that I point out to him truth. God will not be mocked!
        And yes those that do will be "shut up"! And yes that day is coming.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOLOLOL

          Seriously - buy a dictionary, hate monger. What on earth do you hope to achieve by shouting that I will be made to shut up!

          And you think this is showing love?
          :LOL: :LOL:

          Your ridiculous beliefs are just that - ridiculous. No other word for it. Liar.

  • atomswifey profile image67
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    LOL!!!!!  Here you are asserting the theory that the Big Bang didn't happen.  MMMk.  Plenty of continued evidence:  a) Large-scale homogeneity
    b) Hubble diagram
    c) Abundances of light elements
    d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
    f) Large-scale structure of the universe
    g) Age of stars
    h) Evolution of galaxies
    i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
    j) Tolman tests
    k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
    l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
    m) Dark Matter
    n) Dark Energy
    z) Consistency
    So, now the burden is on you, with an abundance of evidence, to provide contrary evidence to this well-accepted theory. 

    LOL I laugh too as it is evident that if all what you wrote there were evidence that it happened, it would then NOT be a THEORY!
    LOL

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ah - I take it you are so uneducated and ignorant, you do not understand the meaning of the word "theory," in science? lol

      Did you actually go to school?

    2. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry you're so uneducated, atomswifey.  sad  How's that suspension of apples coming along?

      1. atomswifey profile image67
        atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am uneducated? LOL
        Ok
        You presume waayyyyy too much there.

        But it is not I that suspends those apples, it your belief which would make that possible.

        But again, if what you state, what you wrote there are facts and evidence to provide proof it happened, why then is it yet a THEORY??

        How does science come to those conclusions?
        through exploration, through experiments etc right?
        Ok, how would one then conclude or even produce evidence if that what they are to explore were not there already?
        by that I mean,
        the science they apply to what they see that lies withing the universe.
        So, then the universe holds its secrets as well as it exposes its own truth right?
        so if that is the case,
        Man has come to the ability through science to interpret what he sees within the universe right?

        OK, having concluded that to that point then, why is it that science then, cannot determine beyond a resonable doubt those theories are correct and factual?

        And too, why is it that the universe which holds evidence of the creation of the earth, does not hold any evidence towards its own creation and or development.

        What I mean by that is,
        Where, if all the studies you presented show how the earth MIGHT have been created, again we are talking about a theory, where did all that matter, whether living or not come from?

        Was it all just there?
        Floating around?
        Waiting for the big boom?
        And how if you assert there was big boom, how then do you account for all the order coming to be as a result of something that happened (as you purpose), but as a result of something that would have happened by chance, or by chaos, not in order, random?

        A random event. A random set of circumstances that resulted in so much order to sustain the lives it produced? Does not make sense!

        And I was challenged to the idea that even I were to have successfully argued the theory of evolution as it pertains to creation that in that, I would not be successfully proving the existence of God.

        But I would challenge back, that yes it does.
        There are only two options.
        1. The theory of creation being made by a spontanious event, random events, by chance
        2. That a superior being with intelligence designed and created it, in other words, a god.

        You have taken the side of theory of option 1. and assert rather absolutely that there is no god. Not any, whether that god be mine or someone else's.

        1. 0
          wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not a presumption you're uneducated, a logical conclusion based on what you say.  The above continues to show this lack of knowledege.  If you knew anything about evolution, abiogenesis, or logic you'd know what you are saying is incorrect. We've never argued it's all random.  Again, you don't know the basics.

          I suppose you should win a Nobel Prize then since you claim to have proven the existence of God.  I mean, that's a pretty big thing, isn't it!  And to think, it happened here on little old HubPages.  Wow.  When was the last time ANY biblical-literalist-creationist won a Nobel prize in ANY field.  Thinking, thinking, thinking.  Oh yeah, that's right:  Science  rewards the finding of better answers, not hiding from them. 

          PLEASE.  Do some reading, if you will.

          1. atomswifey profile image67
            atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            How is what I am saying incorrect?
            How has even science been able to prove what I have stated wrong?
            To come to that conclusion, one would have to know the facts as they really happened, and there is no fact to that! What science has done so far is speculate or guess as to what might have taken place, not that they or you could even possibly presume what actually did take place!


            You are basing your beliefs on things which someone told you were true or factual.
            You also base your beliefs on a THEORY, a specualtion of those things that might have been, not on anything that is provable at all!
            The only way to prove any of the theories you posed, one would have to go back in time and look for yourself, which you cannot.
            So to assert that so called "knowledge" you think you have and conclude that in my own belief I have no knowledge is absurd!

            I challenge evolution, the theories behind it. I have never claimed to have conclusively proven the exitence of God!
            There you are twisting my words to bend to your own ego!

            I stated very clearly, that I was challenged with the words "but even if you succesfully argued evolution..."
            And I stated back that IF I HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL in that, it would yes, prove the existence of God.

            I also pointed out the obvious as to why this would be true in the fact there only 2 choices
            1. evolution, random event produced life
            2. God created life

            And I never said you argued it as being random either!!
            I said, that it did not and does not make sense to me that a random event like the big boom could result in life being so orderly as it is, the tides, the moon, the sun, all being in perfect order to sustain life.
            I believe it is rather obvious to conclude as there are a great number of your "scientist" who agree with me as well, that to conclude all of the order then followed as a result of something random is too far fetched to believe. That is my opinion on it!

            1. 0
              wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't say this, then?

              "I gave you proof Mark. I showed you where the proof is. You ignoring it is not anyones fault but your own.

              I showed you where science goes wrong with their theories and why it is obvious then to take creation and offer it as proof He exists."

              May I offer, again, you can't jump from the erroneous conclusion that debunking the Big Bang (LMAO, you in no way did that) is proof that God exists.  I'm not buying that God of the gaps argument for a minute, as it's logically flawed.

              1. atomswifey profile image67
                atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                OK then, let me ask you this
                You believe with your whole heart obviously that scientists have proven that all that we see in the universe, the universe itself even came to be a result of some sort of spontaneous event right?
                Regardless of the fact that there are "gaps" in those theories, and big ones at that. Considering that if there were no gaps and science had proven conclusively that this is exactly how it all started, we would not be having this debate right now.

                OK,
                but humor me for one second please use that "open mindedness" you claim I do not have, and answer me this,
                If God does exist and He is the one to have created everythng,
                where are the "gaps" in that scenario?

                What "gaps" can you provide as evidence that God did not create the universe and all this planet and all life on it?

                The only "gap" I see you claiming is that God does not exist. But you fail to show any proofe he does not exist.

                We, as believers in God and the proof we see as creation itself also know for certain that there gaps in the science. You yourself even claim that there gaps in it all. You then claim we fill in those gaps with God.

                So again, if I and others believers are right, where are there any gaps in God creating the universe etc.?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  What do you hope to achieve here?

                  Here is the deal:

                  The burden of proof is yours. But I like this one:

                  100% lack of evidence for the Tooth fairy means the Tooth fairy does not exist.

                  I assume you agree with me there? let me know if you do not.

                  100% lack of evidence for a god means there is not a god.

                  Proven

                  1. atomswifey profile image67
                    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    But there is no "100% lack of evidence" Mark. The evidence is in creation itself!

                    Now again, open your mind and humor me,
                    if God exists and he created the universe where are the gaps???

  • tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    Maybe she needs a new pair of glasses cool  lol

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      She needs a student loan!  lol  She doesn't even understand the word "theory".  SHEESSHH.  Theory of gravity, for example.  I suppose she thinks she can jump off cliffs and she'll be fine.  LMAO!

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Crap - if she sends me her address, I will post her some books.

        1. 0
          wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, but Mark she's "proven" the existence of God.  Better nominate her quickly for that Nobel  Prize. Books, shmooks!  lol

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Nah - I have heard that one before. It generally involves ignoring any scientific advances and opening your eyes to the proof that is there for all to see.................. Like trees..... lol

  • tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    Or maybe brain surgery

  • earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Lost it again sock puppet? smile No one will be surprised, science and logic were never your forte! lol

  • Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 7 years ago

    Why are you stooping to the level of a spammer with an anal disorder Wordscribe? 
    The simple fact that "Lost the Plot" is measured by a wider community to have a Value of a mere 45.. speaks for itself.
    For someone with so much to say; this entity is quite clearly unable to communicate their beliefs in a hub..... Whata totally wasted space!! lol

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed, Pearldiver.  Done with the exchange with this gentleman.   A man who was previously banned from the forums and now uses a different identity.  Thanks for snapping me out of it.  Mohit, on the other hand is a respectful soul.

      1. video lost profile image60
        video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL

        you believe on soul, dont tell me, you have'nt seen it and the science has not proved it yet

        1. 0
          wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's a term, numnut.  A word.  An expression, if you will.  BUGGER OFF, angry one!

          1. video lost profile image60
            video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So a SOUL is just a word for you. But for scientists it's a major mystry which they are unable to resolve. They lost their heads to find out the power (soul) behind the neorons (the basic ingredient of brain). So scientists blindly believe on soul, why dont you ???

            Many modern day researchers are of the opinion that human consciousness / soul / spirit comes from an unknown source beyond the neurons in the brain and the molecules and atoms that form them. Wilder Penfield, a famous researcher reached the conclusion that the existence of spirit is an undeniable fact. He said “After years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements [brain and mind (or soul)]. …Because it seems to be certain that it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain… I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements. [brain and mind, or body and soul]"

            1. 0
              wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              From such a trustworthy source:  http://www.globalfreemasonry.com/global … ry_04.html

              Would you HOP OFF the freemasonry garbage?  The soul is in no way a mystery for any educated scientist, it doesn't exist for them...  Mystery solved!

              1. video lost profile image60
                video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Not soleved yet, tell me what is an educated scientist and what is an uneducated scientist ??? What a beautiful terms you people use for justifying filthiness.

                Stephen Hawking

                ... "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us..."

                1. 0
                  wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL!!!!  Too tired and fed up with dealing, so let me quote:  "
                  Atheism is Freedom

                  Tuesday, February 17, 2009
                  Ray Comfort's book: Thorough review part 4
                  This is part 4 of Flimsy and I's very thorough review of Ray Comfort's "You can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions From Angry Skeptics".
                  (earlier parts here)

                  Comfort opens Chapter 1 with this quote by Stephen Hawking:

                      It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us

                  In reading this quote out of the context of A Brief History of Time, one might conclude that Hawking is stating that the universe is difficult to explain as arising without a creator. In a way, he is, but he isn't saying that a creator is therefore necessary to explain the universe. My guess is that Comfort does not understand Hawking, but one might argue that he cherry-picked this sentence because it fits with his particular worldview, or he is being deliberately misleading, or perhaps something else (you decide, Comfort has actually blogged about this here). If you actually look at the context in which Hawking wrote this quote, you'll see that Hawking was not saying that the universe began as an act of God. He is saying that the hot big bang model is a particular model that has difficulties. He goes on to use inflationary models to reconcile these difficulties. It seems as though Comfort is confusing "difficult" with "impossible". A theory may be difficult to explain, but that does not make it wrong."  Out of context, sorry.

                  http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/3215/deadpoolcommonsenselm4.jpg

                  Here's what I have to say about educated versus uneducated scientists... When was the last time ANY biblical-literalist-creationist won a Nobel prize in ANY field.  Thinking, thinking, thinking.  Oh yeah, that's right:  Science  rewards the finding of better answers, not hiding from them.

                  1. video lost profile image60
                    video lostposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL

                    I dont know why are you taking the support of lies. Stephen Hawking's best seller is world famous for pro God. Following is another of his quotes in support of the existence of God.

                    ..."Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God...."

                    For your kind information it does not mean that only a noble prize winner is the only scientist. There are hundreds of scientists who are not noble prize winners but their work is appreciated in scientific circle and is used in further researches, theories and implementations. 

                    Regarding your quote "Atheism is freedom", i agree, because it's one of the major reasons USA, Europe and Australia have got the maximum number of crimes as compared to any other country of the world.

  • Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 7 years ago

    Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Lost the Plot.... Write a hub, get a life and new medication. smile

    1. 0
      wordscribe41posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lost the plot!  lol

  • earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    As the burden of proof is on the believers, and the believers only have scripture and no facts, I guess the case is well made. smile

  • Post a Reply
    jump to first post
     
    working