|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Amazon Web Services|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|
If something is invisible does it necessarily follow that it must not exist?
Some atheists believe that a spiritual body is a meaningless concept because non-physical bodies are not visible. Does that mean, then, that if something is invisible it necessarily must not exist?
No because, conceivably, you could still sense something that is invisible. If a rock was invisible, I could still touch it. If my neighbor bakes a pie, but I can't see it, I can still smell it. And I might not know where the sound came from, but I can still hear it. These senses are aided by scientific equipment, allowing us to see, hear, and smell things that we otherwise couldn't, which proves to us that they exist. To an atheist, it's not just that we can't see god. It's that he fails every sensory test, even when aided by scientific equipment.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate the breathtaking daedal designs & systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus unshakable evidence of our Creator's necessary exist
So tell us who created the Creator? Show us this unshakable evidence as well. Then if you say that the Creator is eternal, then you are back to square one...with no need for a creator.
Not necessarily. You don't have to see a breeze to know it exists.
Most of us acknowledge the existence of the "subconscious mind" even though you can't see it or point to it on an anatomy chart.
I suspect most atheists simply don't believe what is written or taught by organized religions. It's understandable there would be non believers today. After all this stuff supposedly happened thousands of years ago!
However according to the bible when Jesus was actually walking the earth and performing miracles there were many people who still did not believe he was the son of God! They actually saw him in the flesh!
Now if "seeing was believing" there should have been no one alive in that era to doubt him!
Therefore tonight if there was a major satellite scramble and on every TV station there appeared a man proclaiming he was Jesus returning to earth there would likely still be billions of skeptics!
The search would be on to find out who and how the satellites were "hacked" into. Seeing is not necessarily believing!
Spiritual belief is about having an "inner knowing" or sense of awareness. Anyone who is relying on fables written in the bible or the words of some clergy member as their "proof" that God exists is someone who is seeking proof.
Luke 17:21 says "....the kingdom of God is within you."
God made man and man made religion.
Most atheists don't believe the bible is a historical factual resource.
Unless you have some evidence that suggests that invisible bodies exist, you have nothing more than wishful thinking.
If something exists, but cannot be detected by the fives senses, or with scientific instruments, the default position is not to assume that it exists. A claim can only be validated when it can be demonstrated that something does exists. To conclude otherwise is nonsense.
And when you say necessarily, I think that's just smoke and mirrors, trying to set up a twist. Of course some things that are invisible DO exists...like the wind, electricity and radiation. But they all can be detected by human senses or scientific instruments. But magic characters in ancient books?
Does that mean your conscience does not exist?
Conscience is a label we've invented to describe a thought process. Brain activity can be measured/proven to exist.
Sounds kinda desperate. Even desperate enough to compare "thoughts" to magic beings from ancient fairy tales. Instead of playing a desperate game with logic, I admitted that I had been duped!
A more important point is that many do not believe because there is no evidence. This is a logical fallacy (argument to ignorance type). A lack of evidence never disproves a thesis. Of course, it doesn't prove it, either.
So many people are afraid to say simply, "I don't know." For some, this is an ego thing. They have to pretend that they know, because the unknown is so uncomfortable to ego.
For someone who thinks that they are only their body and are comfortable with that, the question is entirely moot. But claims made by disbelievers are worthless. Again, their arguments are based on a logical fallacy. Saying, "I don't know," would be far more productive.
As others have so accurately put, invisibility is not a valid basis for non-existence. Wind, gravity, time, space -- all of these, and more, are invisible.
Some people are not ready to sense spirit. That's okay. Move on to those who are ready. Those who are ready for it can feel it. Disbelievers may think this is delusion, but that's only their own blindness.
Exploring the non-physical (spiritual) has led to many breakthroughs in my life. These include viewing the environment with 20/20 clarity without human eyes, and miracles of the extraordinary (cause-and-effect coincidence) kind. This state has also led intellectual discoveries only later confirmed by research. It's as if I could "see" the knowledge first, without having to "learn" it. The learning (confirmation) came later. More importantly, this state has helped achieve greater understanding of basic principles. Like the time I was studying electronic engineering and realized that I was surrounded by trillions of tank (LC) circuits. This was helpful in developing my 3D astronomy software, Stars in the Neighborhood and in writing my two novels. It also helped in my discovery of a biblical timeline compatible with those of science and the discovery of the Kabbalists' "Tree of Life" matrix embedded in two chapters of Genesis, as well as the identity, through science, of the Genesis 6 "daughters" responsible for the event we call "The Flood."
by Mahaveer Sanglikar11 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by M. T. Dremer2 years ago
Atheists, can you make an argument for god's existence?They say that, in order to understand both sides of an issue, you must know enough that you could argue for the other side. It's a common practice in speech/debate...
by Apostle Jack6 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle...
by Link101033 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it...
by M. T. Dremer2 years ago
Why would god create atheists who can't be convinced of his existence?
by accofranco9 years ago
If your answer is yes,what is your proof.And then which religion is the true religion and which one is false and why do you think so?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.