SIMILAR ARTICLES

99 COMMENTS

  1. There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      You haven’t done much of this sort of thing before have you?

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      Here’s where you seem to not be understanding the burden of proof. Many Christians will say what you have just said, “Well you cannot disprove God.”. That’s the point of an unfalsifiable theory and the reason it holds no weight, as Carl Sagan puts it. I could invent any number of unfalsifiable theories, then push them onto other people and say “Go ahead, disprove it. You can’t” and I’d be correct. They couldn’t. But the burden of proof says that when you make a claim, any claim, YOU are responsible for backing the claim up with the evidence and proof. Not the other way around.

      So lets say I made the classic spaghetti monster approach and invented my own unfalsifiable theory that stated a spaghetti monster created everything, was all powerful, and undetectable. This would be the basis of really any unfalsifiable theory by the way. I then took that theory and instead of showing you why I believe this, or the proof, or the evidence; I instead turned it around completely and made YOU disprove it.

      So moral of the story: Don’t hold other people accountable for disproving what you yourself cannot prove first. It’s just not how the burden of proof works, and it won’t get you taken seriously at all by any critical thinking scientific person.

      • In reply to #4 by Dividan84:

        In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

        There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

        Here’s where you seem to not be understanding the burden of proo…

        If someone actually knows something, the easiest way to convince people is to share how they know it. But, watch out for gimmicks. Back in ancient time, some of us Army atheist pals were sitting around talking when some guy came along trying to sell religion. His gimmick was to ask if we were versed in all of man’s knowledge. I answered “no.” Then, he went boldly forward with what, in his mind, was to be the atheist killer: “How do you know that, among all that knowledge is not the knowledge of God?” I then said, “So, point to where this knowledge of God is and I’ll go look it up.” End of story.

      • In reply to #4 by Dividan84:

        In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

        There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

        Scientific reasoning tends to avoid unpalatable truths. Huxley understood this when he coined the term ‘agnostic’ to express the viewpoint that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved because it falls outside the abstract reasoning process. Hence a believer who states there is a God is on as strong (or weak) ground as an atheist who states there is no god. Neither of them know for certain which is why Dawkins uses the word ‘probably’ when stating his viewpoint and why many of us who are believers use the word ‘hope’.

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      It’s like Yogi Berra said, “If fans don’t wanna come out to the ballpark, how you gonna stop ‘em?”

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      What has become increasingly clear is that God is not necessary as a means to explain the huge variety of life, physical phenomena, weather, illness, morality, accidents and the many fields that traditionally lunged or the God answer.

      Imagine you assert that God is behind the creation of a duck, that a duck is deeply mysterious. I consult a biologist and come back with an explanation of how the duck grows, breeds and functions. No, you tell me, that’s not the mysterious part of the duck. So I consult an evolution expert and come back with an explanation of how the duck was shaped by survival in its environment, how successive generations departed from some prehistoric ur-duck and the mallard we recognise today resulted. No, you say, the mystery is in another bit. So I present explanations for the macromolecular chemistry, the nerve system, the aerodynamics, the senses, how it communicates, and at every turn you say No, that’s not the mysterious bit, that’s not the bit that God did.

      Eventually we run out of duck, or there’s some minuscule unsolved question left behind. And you would cleave to this, jubilating in increasingly diminishing patches of “scientific ignorance” (just wait, some busy white-coat might catch up). But do you not see the absurdity of inserting at this level the most byzantine, fantastic hypothesis concerning pre-existing, omnipotent, supra-dimensional intelligence at this stage? The scientific explanations have pinned enormously complex outcomes down to simply polarities of gravity, hunger, wet/dry, metabolism, and 99.9% of the duck is explained in a way that is predictive, repeatable, measured, quantified and secure. Not only does it leave God with very little to do.

      My coffee cup fell off the table and smashed. Did God deliberately move it to the floor and personally tear apart and scatter the china pieces? No, it just fell and broke because it was brittle.

      Not a proof of God’s non-existence, but at least an argument that shows us where to usefully point our thinking.

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.
      The title says “God probably doesn’t exist” emphasis on ‘probably’ because you could never prove anything not existing, even Santa Claus.

      • Things just exist. That’s the way it is. All the scientific terms and all the religious nonsense can be debated forever but the simple answer is THINGS EXIST! And it all started a long time ago and before that who knows what happened. No one knows and very likely we will never know. In reply to #39 by jtveg:

        In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

        There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.
        The title says “God probably doesn’t exist” emphasis on ‘probably…

    • Thus the word “probably”.In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.
      Nobody can prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden!
      That is just about the basis for belief in the supernatural!

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      Then I take you think it impossible to prove to (in the sense of convince) a child that there are no monsters under the bed. I take it seeing no monster, seeing no evidence of monster activity, pointing out the complete lack of monster attacks on TV and in the newspapers is not sufficient.

      Properly speaking, proof is a term from the realm of mathematics. You don’t prove cows have four legs, you offer evidence they do. You can’t prove the sun will rise tomorrow either, though you can give ample evidence historical, astronomical and gravitational why it almost certainly will.

      Your argument reminds me a bit of a child who says, “I refuse to eat my peas until you prove they are good for me.” It is just a way of discarding the parent’s rational arguments for eating the hated peas.

      Why do you need proof rather than simply overwhelming evidence, especially when you have not a stick of evidence to support you god hypothesis? Surely the weight of evidence should prevail, as in a court room.

      Geometry and algebra are about the only places in life where it makes sense to demand a proof. Only in that realm is truth so certain.

      • In reply to #49 by Roedy:

        Geometry and algebra are about the only places in life where it makes sense to demand a proof.

        Not so. You can prove the butler did it by putting together the clues and making a logical case. You can prove you’re entitled to housing benefit by filling in the form correctly and providing any necessary documents. You can give proof in all sorts of situations. A mathematical proof is not a better sort of proof, just one which the rules of the system permit.

        • In reply to #50 by aldous:

          In reply to #49 by Roedy:

          Geometry and algebra are about the only places in life where it makes sense to demand a proof.

          Not so. You can prove the butler did it by putting together the clues and making a logical case.

          Wondergoat demands far more that that. He demands absolutely no possibility, no matter how absurd, a god could exist. Even probability 0.000000000000000000000001 is not low enough. That is quite low enough for pretty much anything else. He wants far more assurance that his confidence the sun will rise tomorrow. Why? a debating tactic. Logically all I should have to do is show more evidence a god does not exist that he can come up with evidence one does.

          • In reply to #52 by Roedy:

            Wondergoat demands far more that that.

            Right. He’s not asking for disproof of gods. He’s refusing to provide or accept any criteria for deciding the issue. In that case, proof doesn’t apply and all we can do is have a good laugh at the absurdity of his position. Satire not reason is what he’s opening himself up to.

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      There is no proof that Santa Claus does not exist, no proof that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, no proof either for the non-existence of the Jolly Green Giant, witches, demons, hobgoblins, Little Red Riding Hood or the Sandman, Zeus, Atlas, Thor, Woden and several thousand other gods. No proof that they don’t exist. Do you worship one of them, all of them in rotation, or maybe an annual favourite? Do you believe in absolutely everything on the grounds that there is no proof that they don’t exist. Is there anything that you don’t believe in?

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.
      To WonderGoat: What a doorknob! So typical and so dumb. The burden of proof lies with you, WonderGoat. Who makes extraordinary claims must come up with extraordinary proof. What Wondergoat does is like claiming that Elvid was just seen in Boston, and then asks me to disproof it. … again … no wonder that “believers” are usually not very bright

    • In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      Have you missed your logics class?

  2. In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

    There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

    Read what I have read. Read the ancient Greek myths. Read the Prose Edda. Read other non-biblical ancient translated Hebrew texts and you may discover the same thing I have discovered…. God is Time. In the beginning Time created the heavens and earth. Time is the alpha and omega. Time is eternal. Time is infinite. Ever since I realized that God is Time I began to understand the biblical and mythological symbolism. Understand that most references to God and giants are references to time or a periods of time. The biblical sons of god are the sons of time or sons of the past. Probably neanderthals. The nephilim, the fallen angels, were all non-human males which joined with the daughters of man and produced heroes of renown are the same as the ancient Greek nymphs who were all non-human females which would seduce human men and produce super-humans. You believe in god because you believe in the bible but once you understand that the bible is just a collection of myths based on the evolutionary progress of ancient humans and their perception and understanding of time and their existence, then your belief in god may change as well.

    • In reply to #5 by nycdave:

      In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

      Read what I have read. Read the ancient Greek myths. Read the Pr…

      You’ve got to be kidding? What nonsense is this?

    • In reply to #5 by nycdave:

      In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

      “Ever since I realized that God is Time I began to understand the biblical and mythological symbolism.”

      Fair enough, but did it help you understand disease, engineering, inheritance, electricity, society? Insights like God = Time are fine enough to explain the riddles wrapped up inside theology, just like when you suddenly “get” the backstory of Hercule Poirot (or Wolfman or the Jedi). But it kind of stops there.

    • COMO DIZ O DITADO, QUE TUDO FOI CRIADO, SE DEUS CRIOU O UNIVERSO E OS PALANETAS E ETC….., QUEM CRIOU ELE, ELE VEIO DO NADA, ALGUÉM CONSEGUE ME EXPLICAR, COMO EU ESTOU LENDO O LIVRO ( DEUS UM DELÍRIO), TEM UMA FRASE INTERESSANTE, SE OS PRIMEIROS FORAM ADAO E EVA, COMO FICA A EXISTENCIA DOS HOMENS PRIMITIVOS, E OS DINOSSAUROS, NA VERDADE TEMOS 50% DE PROBABILIDADE DE EXISTENCIA E 50% DE PROBABILIDADE DE NÃO EXISTENCIA, EU COMEÇO A ENTENDER QUE A BIBLIA FOI APENAS O PRIMEIRO LIVRO ESCRITO E QUE INFELIZMENTE MEXEU COM A MENTE DA HUMANIDADE DE INCERTEZAS E DE CORRUPTOS GANHANDO DINHEIRO NOS TEMPLOS COM PALAVRAS DESTE LIVROS QUE NÃO SABEMOS SE É UM CONTO DE FADAS.

    • In reply to #6 by Ilan:

      What does it mean to say that “Time created the heavens and the earth”. This seems meaningless.

      It means the “heavens and earth” evolved through time. Most of the biblical creation story is a metaphor for time and evolution. If you replace the word “God” with “Time” then the biblical creation story and other old testament stories tell a different story. A story that confirms much of what science has discovered.

      Consider the biblical story of Cain and Abel. Two brothers, one older than the other. Both offer sacrifices to god. Cain, the older brother offers fruits and vegetables and Abel, the younger offers meat. God favors Abel’s meat sacrifice. As a metaphor, I understand this story as two species of man, coexisting but competing. The older species of man is plant eater. The younger species of man is meat eater. Time favored the meat eater, or in other words, the meat eater adapted better than his plant eating predecessor. Is this interpretation not in line with the story of human evolution? The bible is full of stories of two sons or two brothers who are at odds and the younger is destined to rule over the older. This is the story of evolution, told over and over again as metaphors.

    • In reply to #8 by Ohtar:

      But in my limited understanding, time isn’t actually anything more than a relationship between events. You may as well say “Distance created the universe”.

      I’m not declaring that time created the universe. I’m saying that most references of god in the bible can be references of time. The biblical god may be a primitive rationalization of the concept of time.

      • In reply to #10 by nycdave:

        I’m not declaring that time created the universe. I’m saying that most references of god in the bible can be references of time. The biblical god may be a primitive rationalization of the concept of time.

        In my mind time is just a measure of movement. It is the cosmological events themselves that matter. It may well be interchangeable with god in religious texts, but I am hesitant to validate dogma in such a way.

  3. Let’s begin with the proposition that the only true God is the God of Abraham and Isaac, Moses, and Jesus of Nazareth. All others are figments of human imagination. We have no idea what this person is. The Second Commandment in the Law of Moses prohibits worship of graven images simply because God has no such form in our universe. Jesus of Nazareth said that God is spirit. The word in the Greek is “pneuma”, which is an allegorical description of a breath of air barely rustling a leaf on a tree. We know nothing about God in a purely objective sense. Philosophically, the only valid objective conclusion is that of the agnostic. Statements about God can therefore only be subjective in nature based on the personal beliefs of the one making the statement. Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason noted that we can make no objective statement about the supernatural because we have no way of experiencing it. Mr. Lindenfors’ statement, “God probably doesn’t exist”, implies that the mathematical probability of God’s existence has been measured and found to be zero. This is an impossible conclusion. Mr. Lindenfors’ statement is therefore purely subjective based on his personal beliefs. In fact all of atheism is subjective in nature as is theism and is therefore religious in nature.

    • In reply to #11 by virgil.soule:

      … Mr. Lindenfors’ statement, “God probably doesn’t exist”, implies that the mathematical probability of God’s existence has been measured and found to be zero.

      Not really. The statement would be true if the probability is less than 50%, measured or inferred. Given the thousands of mutually exclusive (which not all are) deities that have been worshiped by humans over thousands of years, your chance of picking one, at random (which for most people equates to an accident of birth time and place), that actually exists is well below that threshold. If you claim to have substantiating evidence to get the probability up higher, please present it.

      In fact all of atheism is subjective in nature as is theism and is therefore religious in nature.

      Some of it can be for some people, but not all of it (and not most of it from my experience). Most of the atheism I encounter is from simple lack of belief, just like lack of belief in the Easter Bunny. The Easter Bunny may exist, but lack of belief in Him makes you an a-Bunnyist.

      • In reply to #12 by Quine:

        In reply to #11 by virgil.soule:

        … Mr. Lindenfors’ statement, “God probably doesn’t exist”, implies that the mathematical probability of God’s existence has been measured and found to be zero.

        Not really. The statement would be true if the probability is less than 50%, measured or inferred. Give…

        It’s amazing how the pious like to bash us by equating our views to theirs. There’s method to this though: if reason has nothing to say, faith and religion are safe.

  4. One approach to hammering religion is to point out that, if faith is a valid means of knowing, then all religious claims are true, including those of the Islamic radicals. Since religious claims contradict each other, we (or those who accept PNC, the principle of non-contradiction) know that some of them have to be false, which refutes the claim that faith is a valid means of knowing.

    Another route is that a claim with no evidence is just an arbitrary assertion and can and should be dismissed as arbitrary bullshit.

    Moving on, refuting a general existence claim is difficult because the non-existent leaves no evidence; it leaves, so to speak, no fingerprints.

    Two ways I know of to disprove (refute) a claim are: 1) show that the claim is self contradictory, 2) show that the claim contradicts some known fact. In the 2nd case, we are counting on the epistemological truth that a fact invalidates all contradictory assertions. In both cases, we count on PNC.

    IMO, it’s the 2nd approach that offers a road to refutation. I don’t think a direct attempt at refuting God will work because the pious’ concept of what it is varies all over the place. It’s wholly arbitrary and offers no contact with the ground where one can see a contradiction with fact. A better route is to attack the concept of the supernatural; miracles, after all, are what the pious want from the god(s) in their haunted universe. I.e, a god that doesn’t offer miracles is worthless–it offers no magic.

    So, how do we proceed now? It’s well known that the supernatural, with its miracles, supposedly overrides real behaviors. I think a refutation of the supernatural could be found along this line of consideration. The concept of the supernatural asserts that a thing can act in ways that are impossible to it. But a thing can only act in ways (causality) that derive from what it is–its identity. To act in ways impossible to a thing, therefore is to act against a thing’s identity. But, the law of identify is axiomatic: all proof and thought depend on it. Trying to prove it would require assuming it to prove it, a logical absurdity. This is like what Aristotle handled when he discussed the PNC (principle of non-contradiction). There is a very important bit about this included in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    4. The Fundamental Principles: Axioms (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy–Aristotle)

    Before embarking on this study of substance, however, Aristotle goes on in Book Γ to argue that first philosophy, the most general of the sciences, must also address the most fundamental principles—the common axioms—that are used in all reasoning. Thus, first philosophy must also concern itself with the principle of non-contradiction (PNC): the principle that “the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect” (1005b19). This, Aristotle says, is the most certain of all principles, and it is not just a hypothesis. It cannot, however, be proved, since it is employed, implicitly, in all proofs, no matter what the subject matter. It is a first principle, and hence is not derived from anything more basic.

    What, then, can the science of first philosophy say about the PNC? It cannot offer a proof of the PNC, since the PNC is presupposed by any proof one might offer—any purported proof of the PNC would therefore be circular. Aristotle thus does not attempt to prove the PNC; in the subsequent chapters of Γ he argues, instead, that it is impossible to disbelieve the PNC. Those who would claim to deny the PNC cannot, if they have any beliefs at all, believe that it is false. For one who has a belief must, if he is to express this belief to himself or to others, say something—he must make an assertion. He must, as Aristotle says, signify something. But the very act of signifying something is possible only if the PNC is accepted. Without accepting the PNC, one would have no reason to think that his words have any signification at all—they could not mean one thing rather than another. So anyone who makes any assertion has already committed himself to the PNC. Aristotle thus does not argue that the PNC is a necessary truth (that is, he does not try to prove the PNC); rather, he argues that the PNC is indubitable. (For more on the PNC, see the discussion in the entry on Aristotle’s logic)

    >

    Caution: The fundamental axioms referred to here are not like the axioms of, for example, the real number system. We do not start from these and try to provide existence proofs for tomatoes or anything else. Nor are properties of tomatoes so derived.
    These axioms are presupposed by all knowledge and give a basic rooting for reason. Awareness of them can also help with cognitive disorder issues. It is significant that the pious attacks on reason always ignore these axioms. They seem to understand that reason with no roots is harmless to them.

    Here’s an example of the attacks on reason that are hard to deal with: a holy man will write “Atheists say that we should provide reasons for our claims. But what are the reasons for that. There aren’t any!” Be aware of what has happened here: in his readers’ minds, he’s blown away 100% of the atheist position–they are armed against any atheist demands for proof of their god. They don’t give a rat’s ass if they have no evidence.

    Of course, it all boils down to “religion is false because it makes no sense at all. It contradicts many many things we know about the world we live in and have to use just to live.”

  5. In reply to #16 by Nitya:

    In reply to #5 by nycdave:

    It’s nonsense to accept the bible as truth as it is written. The bible is collection of myths from one culture. If you compare biblical stories to other myths from other cultures you will find that they have much in common.

    • In reply to #17 by nycdave:

      In reply to #16 by Nitya:

      In reply to #5 by nycdave:

      It’s nonsense to accept the bible as truth as it is written. The bible is collection of myths from one culture. If you compare biblical stories to other myths from other cultures you will find that they have much in common.

      The fact that the the bible is nonsense if read as written is one point of agreement I have with you here. It is indeed ridiculous. I wonder at what time exactly it was supposed that great chunks of this book were meant to be taken metaphorically? Certainly not from the time of compilation, they were called the gospels. Not a term used to describe a collection of metaphorical works.

      So when precisely was it decided to be so? I suspect this understanding of biblical works is a recent interpretation. In fact, I may be so bold as to suggest that this understanding has crept in during my lifetime. Very recent indeed considering the alleged age of the bible.

      Many of the myths are common in different cultures. The flood myth for example, is said to crop up in many different cultural settings. A global flood is extremely unlikely ( where would all that water go?) and there’s no archialogical evidence anyway. Humans make up stories about similar events in their experience. There is no surprise that many of the myths seem similar.

      Are the comments made in #5 your own ideas, or are they part of a religious tradition unknown to me? They seem like a strange form of rationalisation, and convoluted thinking. Why go to the immense effort of constructing a narrative to fit the stories/myths? The easier explanation is to accept that it is in fact nonsense, plain and simple.

  6. In reply to #18 by Nitya:

    I should clarify that my focus is on the biblical creation myth, as well as other creation myths. I look for the possible meaning to creation metaphors, keeping in mind that when these stories were written, they were already myths based on oral story telling that originated hundreds or thousands of years earlier. The interpretations may sound far-fetched, and I accept your criticism, but consider the following examples of interpretations and decide if any make the slightest bit of sense…

    The biblical creation myth says that god separated the waters from waters and placed water above the vault and below the vault and called the vault “sky”. I take this as a primitive explanation of rain.

    In the biblical story of Cain and Abel, Cain is cast out of Eden, Cain’s birth place. This could be a metaphor to what we call the “out of Africa” theory.

    Norse mythology tells the story of how the world and man was created from the body of a frost giant called Ymir. I believe a frost giant is not a giant of size but a giant of time. A frost giant is probably an ice age.

    Greek mythology tells a story of Prometheus offering Zeus two sacrifices, one of entrails with meat hidden underneath, and the other of fat with bones hidden underneath. Prometheus asks Zeus to choose one sacrifice for the gods, therefore the other befalling to man. Zeus chooses the fat, unwittingly choosing bones. I believe this story tries to explain the transition of the human diet from scavenger to hunter. Meat is the meal of a hunter. Bones are the meal of a scavenger.

    Greek mythology says Prometheus created man and man the gift of art, music and weapons. The father of the Titans was Cronus, which means time. Any child could be viewed as a smaller version of its parent. As Cronus is time, I believe the Titans were periods of time. Prometheus, like Ymir of Norse mythology, is probably a period of time. To say Prometheus created man is to say during the time period called Prometheus, man evolved and discovered art, music and the use of weapons.

    Compare the two biblical stories of Cain and Able with Esau and Jacob. In both stories the younger brother prevails over the older the brother. This theme shows up numerous times in the bible and other ancient mythologies. Isn’t this the story of evolution? Evolution is a constant change to adapt. The younger generation is always an improvement of its predecessor.

    The Olympic games began as an reenactment of how ancient Greeks believed human creation began. From a war in heaven, between the Titans and the Olympian gods, emerged humanity. I believe this idea was represented as the runner with the torch, symbolizing the emergence of humanity with their discovery of fire.

    These interpretations is how I convinced myself that evolution is true and that there is no god in the literal sense of the bible.

    • In reply to #19 by nycdave:

      In reply to #18 by Nitya:

      Are your thoughts parts of some doctrine that I’m not aware of? I noticed that a guest ‘liked ‘ your comment so I’m assuming that you ideas are the result of some sort of orthodoxy.

      It appears that you are going to a great deal of effort to meld the various myths into some sort of mega metaphor. What would provoke you to do that? The ‘brothers’ connection, for example, requires an inordinate amount of mental effort to come to the conclusion you have. I don’t know why anyone would waste their valuable thinking skills to produce that result. Does such thinking advance our human existence in any way?

      If a higher intelligence were to exist, why would he communicate in such an incomprehensible fashion? The human brain has a tendency to seek out patterns. This evolutionary advantage has helped our species survive by allowing us to follow various patterns in nature, but your pattern seeking and interpreting behaviour is in overdrive. I can’t see how drawing comparisons in mythology can benefit lives one jot, apart from adding to our store of myths and legends.

      An Australian Aboriginal creation myth involves a great rainbow serpent in the sky. I’d like to see how you could draw a connection to other creation myths, but you’re very inventive so you probably will.

  7. We can take the simpler explanation and build our hypothesis on it : The existence of a conscious deity without creator is in the same logical level as existence of the universe matter/energy without creator. If we suppose our universe comes from the collision of two old universes, and if we suppose time is not limited to the big bang (Time maybe with neither beginning nor end)…It will be evident that all possible events we can imagine will happen in these infinite universes in all possible time/spaces starting with the big bangs of these universes.

    Imagine a big 1000×1000 pixel screen eternal computer, changing 1 pixel color at a time randomly, and printing the result… it’s evident that this unconscious computer will print all the pictures we can imagine, from non-sense, to the most realistic HD pictures….

    More than that, it will re-print printed pictures over and over again, in different sequences…producing an eternal set of videos and events.

    This scenario, starts with something we know (matter/energy) … in an eternal and randomly generated movement, it can create all the possible planets rotating around all possible stars at all possible distances from these stars, in all possible galaxies.

    On these planets, its evident that all possible organic and non-organic substances will be generated. Moving to all possible complexities of RNA and DNA, from which will start evolution.

    If only time is eternal, and if our universe is not the lonely universe… the Big eternal computer scenario is very persuading… BUT : there’s a difference between the BIG computer and our universe :

    The big computer works randomly all the time to generate photos, but the universe’s randomness generates a certain level consciousness… We don’t speak anymore about randomness when we talk about animals trying to find a shelter…or trying to reproduce with their females …. But instead, the bases of their consciousness (DNA) comes from nature, which comes from randomness.

    This scenario explains the evolution of the universe (or universes) from simplicity (eternal time + matter/energy) … to complexity.

    • In reply to #21 by Mohamed:

      We can take the simpler explanation and build our hypothesis on it : The existence of a conscious deity without creator is in the same logical level as existence of the universe matter/energy without creator. If we suppose our universe comes from the collision of two old universes, and if we suppose…

      Now Who can argue with that!? Thank you Gabby Johnson.

  8. From the Big Computer metaphor in my last comment, one can that if time is eternal …then there’s no need for a complicated deity…

    After all, religious people say that God is conscious and knows what he does, and eternal too.

    If just one stone is thrown in an eternal movement for eternity, it will do everything God did ! why? because it’s eternal …and the eternal will perform all possible movements as well as consequences.

    Even human beings … if they’re eternal : I’m sure there be able to create there own universe without even being conscious :)

  9. hahaha, Red Dog, he was funny this Gabby Johnson… Unfortunately, I didn’t get all his words… I’m Moroccan and Gabby’s English is full of “sh”s and “rrr”‘s . What did he say? What I got is that he doesn’t want to leave the town and that he’s ready to die there?

  10. In reply to #25 by Nitya:

    In reply to #19 by nycdave:

    In reply to #18 by Nitya:

    Are your thoughts parts of some doctrine that I’m not aware of? I noticed that a guest ‘liked ‘ your comment so I’m assuming that you ideas are the result of some sort of orthodoxy.

    It appears that you are going to a great deal of effort to me…

    Yeah, I was trying to scroll up … as my computer crashed, I liked his comment accidentally … before getting logged in. I didn’t even read his comment

    • In reply to #26 by Mohamed:

      In reply to #25 by Nitya:

      In reply to #19 by nycdave:

      In reply to #18 by Nitya:

      Are your thoughts parts of some doctrine that I’m not aware of? I noticed that a guest ‘liked ‘ your comment so I’m assuming that you ideas are the result of some sort of orthodoxy.

      It appears that you are going to a…

      Glad to hear it. These are not the sort of thoughts with which I’d like to be identified myself. Crazy stuff IMHO.

  11. In reply to #25 by Nitya:

    I never said that I believed there was a higher intelligence or that a higher intelligence communicated to man via metaphors. My point is there is no god. What I do believe is that many (not all), ancient myths come from man’s attempt to explain the world around them and their existence. Why do I think this is important? Because most religions are built on creation myths and if we were to understand what exactly these creation myths were about, then maybe people would begin to see that religion is not based on a real god but rather on a series of expanded interpretations of misunderstood myths.

    • In reply to #28 by nycdave:

      In reply to #25 by Nitya:

      I never said that I believed there was a higher intelligence or that a higher intelligence communicated to man via metaphors. My point is there is no god. What I do believe is that many (not all), ancient myths come from man’s attempt to explain the world around them and t…

      I’m very sorry. I’ve completely misunderstood your comment. I think you’ll agree that it is a bit confusing. I’ll reread immediately.

    • In reply to #28 by nycdave:

      In reply to #25 by Nitya:

      I never said that I believed there was a higher intelligence or that a higher intelligence communicated to man via metaphors. My point is there is no god. What I do believe is that many (not all), ancient myths come from man’s attempt to explain the world around them and t…

      Ok, what exactly do you mean by saying that god is time? Are you saying that these oral stories have knowingly been passed down, with the understanding that “god” represents the passing of time? I find it difficult to understand what you’re getting at.

      I have no difficulty at all understanding evolution. If it works on a small scale with pests and bacteria developing resistance, then I can easily extrapolate to speciation over the long term. Selective breeding is another concrete example of beneficial inherited traits being used to advantage. Why would you need storytelling to illustrate these processes?

      Ancient myths and legends fascinate me as well. I’m fairly well versed with the popular stories. Myths originating in obscure tribal communities have me a bit baffled though I’m familiar with many aboriginal Dreamtime stories.

  12. Yes, I admit that what I am trying to say is confusing. No, I am not saying that oral stories have been passed down with the knowledge they were based on or inspired by the idea of time. I’ll try to explain another way… You mentioned the Aborigines a couple of times. Lets consider them and American native Indians and other tribal groups which have a belief system of the creation of the world and man. Such belief systems will probably never turn into a world wide religion like Christianity because primitive belief systems usually involve indigenous animals or natural formations. Most people would not believe stories that involve crows or coyotes or a volcano or a large rock because we see and understand what those things are. Tribal belief systems do not translate well into other cultures because the basis of their believes are apparent. However, Christianity is based on an interpretation of the bible, which in turn is based on stories and culture which are built on the biblical creation myth. My claim is that the biblical creation myth is based unknowingly on time. Time is abstract and universal. We can rationalize as symbolism a myth about a turtle or a snake that created the universe but no one seems to able to rationalize biblical myth as symbolism with the same weight as they would a tribal myth. My point is we should. We should see the biblical stories as primitive myths based on primitive man’s observation of the natural world.

  13. Tribal myths are a more basic, less sophisticated form of explanation for the unknown, granted. The aboriginal people have inhabited Australia for 40,000 years, and I don’t think the stories would have evolved much over time.

    I’ll just see if we’re on the same page regarding your ideas, because I wouldn’t want to do you an injustice by jumping to the wrong conclusions. Is it that you see the OT myths as explanations for the passing of time because they found these things difficult to visualise and comprehend? There must be specific instances of this. Could you elaborate again?

    I’m not sure about the significance of the stories with brothers either. Perhaps you’re seeing to much into those? There are many stories featuring two brothers in all fiction. There may be a more psychological basis for these. The number three crops up frequently in story telling as well.

    • In reply to #32 by Nitya:

      Tribal myths are a more basic, less sophisticated form of explanation for the unknown, granted. The aboriginal people have inhabited Australia for 40,000 years, and I don’t think the stories would have evolved much over time.

      I’ll just see if we’re on the same page regarding your ideas, because I…

      I’ll try again to explain my point…

      I look at creation myths. Most creation myths do not evolve into major world wide religions. However, religions based on the bible have a strong hold on the world. I ask myself what is different about the biblical creation myth that makes it so appealing that it can spread across so many cultures and stand the test of time. Once upon a time the biblical creation myth was just a tribal myth. We don’t accept tribal belief systems because they are often based on local animals or a local natural formation. I believe the biblical creation myth is based on the concept of time and observations of the natural world and possibly evolution.

      I already used the example of “god separated the waters from waters and placed waters above and below the vault“ as an explanation of rain. What seems godly and holy is actually a primitive observation of something natural. I believe most of the earliest biblical myths can be explained the way we explain other tribal myths.

      In the story of Cain and Abel and their vegetable and meat sacrifices to god could be explained as a comparison of a vegetarian diet to a carnivorous diet and how time favored the carnivorous diet.

      Greek myth offers the story about Zeus being tricked to choosing a sacrifice of bones for the gods, leaving the meat for man. I see this story as a metaphor to explain the transition of human diet from a scavenger diet to a hunter diet.

      I believe the biblical story of Esau and Jacob, were Esau, the older of the two and a hunter, is tricked into giving up his birthright to Jacob. I see this story as metaphor to explain a step in human evolution from hunter to thinker.

      I believe if people understood the creation mythology they may see that the rest of the bible and religion is just an elaboration of myth.

      • In reply to #34 by nycdave:

        In reply to #32 by Nitya:

        Tribal myths are a more basic, less sophisticated form of explanation for the unknown, granted. The aboriginal people have inhabited Australia for 40,000 years, and I don’t think the stories would have evolved much over time.

        I’ll just see if we’re on the same page regar…

        I’ve just deleted my reply, because it wasn’t really what I wanted to say. I think the creation myth of the bible was probably able to weave a better tale.

        It could well be for the reasons you’ve given, or maybe it was simply more engaging.

  14. I think we can say, with high propability, that all the gods of all known religions that instruct “don’t eat this food” or “don’t have sex that way” probably don’t exist; their holy texts are full of contradictions and assesments that are, well, flat out wrong.

    OTOH, just for argument’s sake, I wouldn’t say that god-like beings probably don’t exist anywhere in the Universe. There is no evidence about their existence, as of yet, but then again there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life in general; however we can extrapolate that it is very possible life was made possible in other planets, just like it was on earth. Using the same logic we can say that we ourselves are pretty much “god-like” beings to lesser lifeforms like ants or even bacteria(more intellectually than physically, as we still can get hurt by them sometimes)…in some sense more “god-like” than the “image” of Yahweh is to humans: there is supposed to be some communication between us and him, but when it comes to ants and humans, what we are and what we think and want is completely impenetratable to them, the gap is so huge that can’t be possibly crossed; not even by sending one of us to them as an ant and have him sacrificed for their salvation.

    By extrapolation, we can assume that it is possible that there exists, somewhere in the universe or the galaxy, some beings that see as as we see ants, and even further, some other entities that consider the former beings as “ant-like”, and so on. They probably didn’t create the entire universe “out of nothing”, but I would call them “gods” nevertheless. A.C.Clarke has played with these concepts in many of his works. They don’t have any practical impact in our lives as long as we don’t interact with such beings, however the idea that there are brains out there that make us, literally, look like monocellural organisms is kind of interesting, even as a thought experiment about the nature and boundaries of intelligence and consciousness in general.

  15. Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.



    Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second )

    can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ??

    if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn’t forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ?

    that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him.
    there is also next life. and i already proved you that no scientist, no politician, no so-called intelligent man in this world is able to understand this Truth. cuz they are imagining. and you cannot imagine what is god, who is god, what is after life etc.


    for example :Your father existed before your birth. you cannot say that before your birth your father don,t exists.

    So you have to ask from mother, “Who is my father?” And if she says, “This gentleman is your father,” then it is all right. It is easy.
    Otherwise, if you makes research, “Who is my father?” go on searching for life; you’ll never find your father.

    ( now maybe…maybe you will say that i will search my father from D.N.A, or i will prove it by photo’s, or many other thing’s which i will get from my mother and prove it that who is my Real father.{ So you have to believe the authority. who is that authority ? she is your mother. you cannot claim of any photo’s, D.N.A or many other things without authority ( or ur mother ).

    if you will show D.N.A, photo’s, and many other proofs from other women then your mother. then what is use of those proofs ??} )

    same you have to follow real authority. “Whatever You have spoken, I accept it,” Then there is no difficulty. And You are accepted by Devala, Narada, Vyasa, and You are speaking Yourself, and later on, all the acaryas have accepted. Then I’ll follow.
    I’ll have to follow great personalities. The same reason mother says, this gentleman is my father. That’s all. Finish business. Where is the necessity of making research? All authorities accept Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You accept it; then your searching after God is finished.

    Why should you waste your time?


    all that is you need is to hear from authority ( same like mother ). and i heard this truth from authority ” Srila Prabhupada ” he is my spiritual master.
    im not talking these all things from my own.


    in this world no `1 can be Peace full. this is all along Fact.

    cuz we all are suffering in this world 4 Problems which are Disease, Old age, Death, and Birth after Birth.

    tell me are you really happy ?? you can,t be happy if you will ignore these 4 main problem. then still you will be Forced by Nature.


    if you really want to be happy then follow these 6 Things which are No illicit sex, No gambling, No drugs ( No tea & coffee ), No meat-eating ( No onion & garlic’s )

    5th thing is whatever you eat `1st offer it to Supreme Lord Krishna. ( if you know it what is Guru parama-para then offer them food not direct Supreme Lord Krishna )

    and 6th ” Main Thing ” is you have to Chant ” hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare “.


    If your not able to follow these 4 things no illicit sex, no gambling, no drugs, no meat-eating then don,t worry but chanting of this holy name ( Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra ) is very-very and very important.

    Chant ” hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare ” and be happy.

    if you still don,t believe on me then chant any other name for 5 Min’s and chant this holy name for 5 Min’s and you will see effect. i promise you it works And chanting at least 16 rounds ( each round of 108 beads ) of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra daily.


    Here is no Question of Holy Books quotes, Personal Experiences, Faith or Belief. i accept that Sometimes Faith is also Blind. Here is already Practical explanation which already proved that every`1 else in this world is nothing more then Busy Foolish and totally idiot.


    Source(s):
    every `1 is already Blind in this world and if you will follow another Blind then you both will fall in hole. so try to follow that person who have Spiritual Eyes who can Guide you on Actual Right Path. ( my Authority & Guide is my Spiritual Master ” Srila Prabhupada ” )


    if you want to see Actual Purpose of human life then see this link : ( http://www.asitis.com {Bookmark it })
    read it complete. ( i promise only readers of this book that they { he/she } will get every single answer which they want to know about why im in this material world, who im, what will happen after this life, what is best thing which will make Human Life Perfect, and what is perfection of Human Life. ) purpose of human life is not to live like animal cuz every`1 at present time doing 4 thing which are sleeping, eating, sex & fear. purpose of human life is to become freed from Birth after birth, Old Age, Disease, and Death.

  16. IF THERE IS GOD WHO CREATED HIM WHERE HE CAME AND BECAUSE OF CREATION, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE, WHERE IT GOT THE UNIVERSE, THE TRUTH WILL DIE WITHOUT KNOWING THE TRUTH AND THAT IS THE DOUBT OF BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT MANY ATHEISTS ARE RELIGIOUS AND USE RELIGION WITH FEAR OF GOD REALLY EXIST AND BE pUNISHED AFTER DEATH, MY GRANDMOTHER TOLD ME WHEN I DIE I COME TELL HOW IT IS AND I AM WAITING FOR THIS TO 27 YEARS AND SHE CAME NOT TELL ME, I HAVE LIE OR pRETEND THAT YOU BELIEVE IN GOD TO BE TREATED WELL BY RELIGIOUS IN BRAZIL IS THAT sEVERAL OF iNFESTED WITH ALL RELIGIONS AND PROFIT, A band of thieves.

  17. After reading books on the universe, I pretty much go along with Stephen Hawking. To me, I do not know if there was a beginning. I have to believe space has always been and also the laws of the universe had to exist.

  18. In reply to #1 by TheWonderGoat:

    There is no proof that God, does not exist. If you can prove that God does not exist, please post your proof and I will read through it or watch it and if it is valid evidence I will take it as truth.

    You need to tell us what kind of proof you need. You can start by coming up with proofs for God’s existence and then working backwards to see what would disprove them. Perhaps as a warm up you can explain to us why fairies are fictional and God isn’t. Anyway, good luck with that.

  19. In reply to #50 by aldous:

    In reply to #49 by Roedy:

    Geometry and algebra are about the only places in life where it makes sense to demand a proof.

    Not so. You can prove the butler did it by putting together the clues and making a logical case. You can prove you’re entitled to housing benefit by filling in the form correct…

    Sorry but you are incorrect you are conflating evidence with proof. This is due to the inadequacy of the English language. Scientifically speaking proofs only exist in mathematics. The examples you give are evidences. You may have strong evidence the butler did it, even a confession, but you later find other evidence that shows he was poisoned before he was shot so was already dead in his chair and not simply asleep. Therefore your proof has been contradicted. Mathematical proofs can never be contradicted. Someone may prove they are entitled to housing with fake documents. You cannot fake a mathematical proof. I hope that clears it up. Ps can you show evidence for God?

    • In reply to #55 by jtveg:

      Scientifically speaking proofs only exist in mathematics

      I am not speaking scientifically. Why should I be? I am not a professional scientist and my education is in language, literature and philosophy. Have you considered looking up a dictionary to help you understand the use of the word ‘proof’?

      • In reply to #56 by aldous:

        In reply to #55 by jtveg:
        Have you considered looking up a dictionary

        Oxford defines it as:
        demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth of

        There are other meanings not relevant. I found however, that Christians do not accept evidence. They want a mathematical sort of proof.

        Mathematics would admit a proof of the form “presuming god exists leads to an absurdity or contradiction, therefore god does not exist”.

        However, Christians do not accept proofs of that form.

        Christians have already decided the matter, and will make up rules ad hoc to dismiss anything that says otherwise.

        • In reply to #57 by Roedy:

          In reply to #56 by aldous:

          In reply to #55 by jtveg:
          Have you considered looking up a dictionary

          Oxford defines it as:
          demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth of

          There are other meanings not relevant. I found however, that Christians do not accept evidence. They want a mathematical sort o…

          That’s right. Proof does NOT mean ‘that which cannot be doubted’. Anything can be doubted. It can be said with reasonable certainty that ‘God’ is a mythical being, like all the other gods. Myth is a fictional genre. ‘God’ exists in the same sense as other fictional characters, like Superman, King Kong, the Queen of the Fairies. This is not a proof. It’s merely stating the obvious.

          What can be proved is that ‘God’ does not exist in fact. Richard Dawkins does this in The God Delusion by pointing out that intelligence is a product of the brain and that, since it evolved within the last million years (or so), it cannot have been present at the beginning of the universe around 14 billion years ago. That’s the case with human intelligence and, a fortiori, the case with hypothetical divine intelligence. So much for an intelligent god.

          There are other meanings of ‘God’ , including the brainless abstraction of pantheists, for whom ‘God’ means something like the forces of nature. This is a superfluous notion, except as a comfort blanket for those who can’t quite let go of the old superstitions

          • In reply to #58 by aldous:

            What can be proved is that ‘God’ does not exist in fact. Richard Dawkins does this in The God Delusion by pointing out that intelligence is a product of the brain and that, since it evolved within the last million years (or so), it cannot have been present at the beginning of the universe around 14 billion years ago

            You are mistaken. Dawkins is very careful in The God Delusion to not make the claim that he has a proof that God doesn’t exist. He treats the God hypothesis as an empirical claim, just like any other statement about things that do or don’t exist. As an empirical claim there can’t be deductive certainty, what a mathematician or scientist means by proof, that the hypothesis is false. There can only be very strong arguments about how likely it is that the hypothesis is true. What Dawkins does is present very strong evidence that the probability of the God hypothesis being true is infinitesimally small but not certainly false.

          • In reply to #59 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #58 by aldous:
            Dawkins is very careful in The God Delusion to not make the claim that he has a proof that God doesn’t exist.

            Dawkins is over-cautious in that case.

          • In reply to #60 by aldous:

            In reply to #59 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #58 by aldous:
            Dawkins is very careful in The God Delusion to not make the claim that he has a proof that God doesn’t exist.

            Dawkins is over-cautious in that case.

            No. He’s not. He is just being a good scientist and he is following the logic of his arguments and his overall framework about how science and math work. You are the one who is being overly aggressive in your argument and are claiming to know something with certainty that you can really only know with a high degree of probability.

          • In reply to #61 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #60 by aldous:

            claiming to know something with certainty

            You don’t exactly hang on my every word, do you? Or even take in what I said in #58 before you replied to it.

            “That’s right. Proof does NOT mean ‘that which cannot be doubted’. Anything can be doubted. It can be said with reasonable certainty that ‘God’ is a mythical being, like all the other gods.” #58

            It really is terribly odd that you should say that there is a claim to know ‘with certainty’ when it is specifically said that that is NOT what is being claimed. Besides, I didn’t even say that that was a proof.

            The disproof of ‘God’s’ existence is the one that Dawkins gave and I paraphrased. Nor did I say that it was a ‘scientific’ or ‘mathematical’ proof. The God Delusion is very evidently neither a scientific or mathematical treatise.

            Roedy has helpfully looked up the dictionary definition of ‘prove’. “Oxford defines it as: demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth of” #57

            It’s in this ordinary, perfectly understandable (I should have hoped) sense that I am discussing the issue. Note that ‘certainty’ is not part of the definition quoted.

          • In reply to #62 by aldous:

            In reply to #61 by Red Dog:
            You don’t exactly hang on my every word, do you? Or even take in what I said in #58 before you replied to it.

            You are making a basic error in understanding the nature of scientific inquiry and the difference between deductive/inductive reasoning and disciplines where you can have certain knowledge (math and logic) and disciplines where you can’t (any natural science). You either haven’t read The God Delusion or you read it and you misunderstood one of the most fundamental and obvious points Dawkins made in the book. Now you seem as if you would rather quibble about the definition of words than understand or acknowledge your obvious error.

            So, you are correct, I see no reason to spend a lot of time reading anything else you wrote if you can’t understand such a basic concept.

          • In reply to #63 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #62 by aldous:

            You are making a basic error in understanding the nature of scientific inquiry

            The God Delusion is not a scientific treatise. It is a book which applies reason and factual knowledge to the issue. I consider that Dawkins proves his point. You seem to have some difficulty in accepting that.

            ” … any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.” The God Delusion

          • In reply to #64 by aldous:

            The God Delusion is not a scientific treatise

            What exactly does that mean? That the normal rules of science don’t apply to a book like the God Delusion? Of course it doesn’t have the same standards for references that a peer reviewed journal article does but it uses the same techniques as any other book by a good scientist. Just as Steven Pinker can talk about issues related to war, society, and morality using ideas from evolution and science so can Dawkins when discussing religion. It’s possible to talk about religious hypotheses as if they are empirical claims and evaluate them accordingly. In fact that is one of the major claims of the The God Delusion! It’s how Dawkins contrasts his view with the non-overlapping magisteria idea promoted by Steven J Gould.

            If you just read the God Delusion and concluded that all it said is God doesn’t exist you didn’t really follow the arguments or reasoning at all. There is a discussion in the God Delusion of these issues. It’s been a long time since I read it but I remember that clearly. And you can quote all the Oxford definitions you want what I’m talking about are basic concepts of science and math that any scientist such as Dawkins or Pinker would use when talking about any serious topic.

            If you want to dumb down the arguments to the imprecise language defined in the dictionary rather than using the rigorous language of science that is your right but it’s also my right to point out that when you say there is proof God doesn’t exist you are speaking incorrectly from the standpoint of a good scientist and I’m sure Dawkins would agree with me.

            I think what you are doing is analgous to us having a debate about Inflation in physics and you replying that the dictionary definition of inflation is X which supports your position. The point is that when we talk about scientific concepts one of the first things we need to do is to be rigorous about our language and the word “proof” has a specific meaning to a good scientist which you are ignoring.

          • In reply to #65 by Red Dog:>

            If you want to dumb down the arguments to the imprecise language defined in the dictionary rather than using the rigorous language of science that is your right

            It’s a right which Richard claimed for himself when challenged on his use of the word ‘delusion’. Psychiatrists wrote to him to insist that the correct word in the context is ‘relusion’. ” …. I am going to stick with ‘delusion’ and I need to justify my use of it”, he said. So how did he justify it? By quoting the dictionary.

            Using a word in its common meaning instead of its technical usage does not imply a rejection of the methods and findings of the discipline concerned. That applies even if you are going to object that psychiatrists are not scientists.

            On the linguistic point, I would contend that you are wrong in several, albeit quite interesting, ways. However, that’s a side issue. The main issue is whether or not Richard proved his point. I think he did, the first part most certainly. How do you think he failed, if that’s what you are arguing?

            God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion

  20. We know from logic, experiment and experience that energy is the basis of existence. Matter is a concentrate of energy. Mind is complex activity of energy/matter. So, God is certainly a mental construct. It could be possible that a powerful mental construct made by a person could endure in the universal energy field long after its human creator dies and it keeps influencing anyone who comes to believe in it. I am drawing attention to this line of reasoning because we know that thoughts, whether our own or those of others, can influence us since open systems are always exchanging energy/matter and so it’s apparent that other people’s thoughts come to us in this manner which is by traveling across space-time through the universal energy field. This mental formation which, as stated earlier, is an aspect of energy is sustained by the billions of beams of energy directed at it by believers through prayers, scripture reading and thoughts. I guess the day most people stop believing in God from then on the energy supplies directed at this mental construct that has taken shape in the universal energy field would soon dissipate and that would signal the end of religion.

    • Sentience, there is no ‘universal energy field’ that contains God or thoughts of God or anything.
      If you can come up with a consistent field theory of this stuff and then back it up with experimental evidence, then I may change my attitute to your ideas. As they are stated they are just fluffy new age ideology that explain nothing and are “not even wrong”.

      The belief in a deity is spread and maintained by my much more mundane means. Humans transmit ideas to each other via speech, writing, teaching and such. No need for universal energy fields or magic.

  21. We know from logic, experiment and experience that energy is the basis of existence. Matter is a concentrate of energy. Mind is complex activity of energy/matter. So, God is certainly a mental construct. It could be possible that a powerful mental construct made by a person could endure in the universal energy field long after its human creator dies and it keeps influencing anyone who comes to believe in it. I am drawing attention to this line of reasoning because we know that thoughts, whether our own or those of others, can influence us since open systems are always exchanging energy/matter and so it’s apparent that other people’s thoughts come to us in this manner which is by traveling across space-time through the universal energy field. This mental formation which, as stated earlier, is an aspect of energy is sustained by the billions of beams of energy directed at it by believers through prayers, scripture reading and thoughts. I guess the day most people stop believing in God from then on the energy supplies directed at this mental construct that has taken shape in the universal energy field would soon dissipate and that would signal the end of religion.

  22. Christ, really???? Again, oranges exist. so do dogs and cats and lizard and even fungi. I have asserted something. Would anyone like to argue????

    Well, then, let’s assert the ultimate cause and then run away when evidence is demanded. FFS, this is stupid, and only entertains the mentally ill.

    Stop already with the wordplay and please please please offer something we can affirm. You see, everyone here would just love love love to sink their teeth into an existing god and then defend what we know as truth. I eagerly await a deity that I can ably defend. GIVE ME ONE.

    I’ll defend the provable god thing to my death. Just give me reason to die.

    • Well, then, let’s assert the ultimate cause and then run away when evidence is demanded. FFS, this is stupid, and only entertains the mentally ill….

      I simply put up a proposition of how god came to be rooted in human ideas and extrapolated the hypothesis to mental formations taking shape in space-time or in the energy of the universe, if you like it.

      Why is this logic so bizarre?

      Humans are open systems constantly exchanging energy, matter and information with surroundings.

      Mind is a product of brain activity or of organized energy/matter, if you like.

      Everything in the universe is an aspect in space-time that itself is self-manifestation of energy.

      So, it stands to reason that thoughts, as formations of energy, can radiate from brain and mingle with the lines of force in space-time thereby spreading out and influencing others who happen to think along similar lines.

    • ” is entropy reversible in localized regions of a sentient system like say the brain despite the overall entropy of the system increasing with time as more and more energy is used up and as senescence sets in?”

      The second law of thermodynamics only holds for closed systems. You stated yourself that a living creature is indeed not a closed system. So the answer is yes. In fact nothing says that entropy cannot stay the same even in a closed system, and thus no information is lost. There is no

      Sentience, I am happy that you are obviously interested in science. If I were you I would find out about what the voltages, frequencies and power of the neuronal activity in the brain is. I am pretty sure that someone will have taken these measurements. From this you should be able to work out wether that would create fields that could pass out into the environment. I suspect that you will find that the surrounding tissue of the brain is a pretty good conductor, in which case no appreciable electrical field will pass through.

      Good luck with testing out your hypotheses, come back when you have something more concrete.
      Cheers.

  23. By universal energy field I mean the energy of the universe. The isolated system we call our universe of which we are a part. I said everything is energy/matter with consciousness being an activity of energy/matter. We’re influenced by words, gestures and acts of others that communicate with us across space-time and maybe the very thoughts of people can affect us since humans are open systems that’re constantly exchanging energy/matter and information with their surroundings. Everything in the universe is a manifestation of interconnected networks of energy/matter. So, in keeping with this line of reasoning, it could be possible that our thoughts or mental constructs, as activities of energy/matter, could endure and imprint themselves not only in our own subconscious but could also radiate out of our brain into the surrounding energy and stay there influencing others who may think along similar lines or influence those who share similar beliefs…

  24. Evidence in the objective sense? Not always possible. Can you give me evidence of the state of singularity that supposedly existed prior to the Big Bang? Can you give me objective evidence of your ardent feelings about what it would be like to win a lottery today? Can you give me objective evidence about the grief you felt when a person dear to you died? Can you give me objective evidence about the joy you experience when you eat your favorite dish? Can your mom give me objective evidence about how she felt when you were delivered (born) in a hospital? Can you create life in the lab or can you fabricate a living organism from scratch or from bio-molecules extracted from a living organism? Can you revive a dead organism using electrochemical means? The list is endless….get it?

    • Can you give me evidence of the state of singularity that supposedly existed prior to the Big Bang?

      Here’s the thing. I am NOT claiming to know this or offering evidence for/against it. I have no idea about this and do not pretend to and I certainly do not need to pontificate in lofty language endlessly about the pomp and circumstance that was the pre big bang universe (see I can do it too)…. I am content with not knowing and understanding that we may never know things that we have no evidence for. But, having no evidence does NOT ALLOW me to pick an answer and assert it is correct. The other stuff you list CAN be proven. You might not be satisfied with the evidence, but it is demonstrable.

      And, your whole “radiating energy” bullshit is exactly that…. bullshit. We can measure energy. We’d “see” it. You are asserting telepathy which has been thoroughly and completely debunked. It is bullshit.

      Can you create life in the lab or can you fabricate a living organism from scratch or from bio-molecules extracted from a living organism?

      Yes you can. It will be done in the next year or two.

      We know from logic, experiment and experience that energy is the basis of existence. Matter is a concentrate of energy. Mind is complex activity of energy/matter. So, God is certainly a mental construct.

      We agree here. And, to add to your thought, energy is what animates matter

      1) How is it possible to recall past thoughts in clear fashion without entropic effects disrupting our brain memories?

      I recently read an abstract of a paper @

      (http://www.molecularbrain.com/content/4/1/5)

      (DNA methylation-mediated control of learning and memory
      Nam-Kyung Yu1, Sung Hee Baek2 and Bong-Kiun Kaang13*)

      about methylation of cysteine residues in DNA as a part of long term memory consolidation. it was pretty cool stuff.

      Natural selection indicates consciousness at work in a living being.

      I don’t quite follow you here. Trees are conscious? On a pre-animal earth, Natural selection was occurring, but consciousness was not “here yet”… Could you explain this further?

      Finally, shouldn’t memory in living beings gradually fail as entropy increases in the brain …..

      Doesn’t it???

      So, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that we’re influenced by thoughts coming to us from all sides.

      I think this is a testable hypothesis.

      1) Test if brains radiate energy or lines of EM force as one is deep in thought.

      2) Measure the field strength generated by thoughts (brain activity) at source and at selected distances away from the source and find its relation with the inverse square law i.e. find out how far and with what strength thoughts (as lines of EM force) can travel in space.

      3) Find out if there could occur any influence on the behavior or on the thoughts of others within the range of a person’s mind field radiating from his brain.

      4) Test if thoughts can manipulate space or events in space.

      All this has been done. It has been definitively demonstrated that your hypothesis is bullshit.

      If you think that there is “hope” for your hypothesis, then construct an experiment and publish your results. It brings me back to the post that you originally responded to….. PROVE what you assert. I do not assert a god; I do not have to offer evidence. I do not assert knowledge of pre big bang universe; I do not have to offer evidence. You assert energy escaping one person’s head and influencing another; you have to offer evidence. Where is it?

      Oranges exist. Telepathy is bullshit.

      In reply to #78 by Sentience:

      Evidence in the objective sense? Not always possible. Can you give me evidence of the state of singularity that supposedly existed prior to the Big Bang? Can you give me objective evidence of your ardent feelings about what it would be like to win a lottery today? Can you give me objective evidence…

  25. A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS ON MENTAL FIELD:

    As known, the strength of a field in the space-time fabric surrounding a source diminishes with increasing distance from the source.

    Thoughts take shape due to chemical activity formed in complex neuronal networks.

    Thoughts, being a phenomenon of energy/matter, should be capable of radiating its lines of force into the surrounding space like any typical field where they connect with lines of force coming from the thoughts emitted by the brain activity of other persons.

    We are matter but live in the world of thoughts – complex activity of energy/matter in neuronal circuits – and never at the degree of awareness needed to perceive or to become aware of the quantum level or of the atomic level.

    So, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that we’re influenced by thoughts coming to us from all sides.

    I think this is a testable hypothesis.

    1) Test if brains radiate energy or lines of EM force as one is deep in thought.

    2) Measure the field strength generated by thoughts (brain activity) at source and at selected distances away from the source and find its relation with the inverse square law i.e. find out how far and with what strength thoughts (as lines of EM force) can travel in space.

    3) Find out if there could occur any influence on the behavior or on the thoughts of others within the range of a person’s mind field radiating from his brain.

    4) Test if thoughts can manipulate space or events in space.

  26. “Mind is a product of brain activity or of organized energy/matter, if you like.”

    In a sense this is true, but trivially so. It is the center of materialist philosophy but scientifically it is not an idea that gets you far. You cannot leap from this to “thoughts, as formations of energy, can radiate from brain and mingle with the lines of force in space-time “.

    From a physics point of view I cannot see anything in the human brain that could radiate energy very far. Thermal radiation is the most likely thing but it is simply a body at whatever normal body temperature is, and by definition thermal radiation does not carry much information (high entropy). The electromagnetic fields given out by the brain are probably pretty feeble, I note that we still have to use very sensitive equipment to detect it’s inner working like MRI with enormous magnets or EEG with electrodes placed directly on the skin. Someone with better biophysics/neurology knowledge than me could probably quantify this for us.

    Certainly it is true that a person’s thoughts can influence the thoughts of another but there is no reason to believe that this is done via anything but the mundane channels of action and speech that we all know. Thoughts may be patterns or something in the human mind but let’s not reify them outside of the patterns of information stored in neurons unless there is some good reason.

    An analogy: As a computer engineer, I know that my computer has plenty of information stored in it as patterns of electrical charge in transistors, but that does not allow me to say that it leaks out into the ‘fabric of space time’ or whatever. It does share that information, but in well known ways over cables and radio waves.

    • In reply to #80 by Stuart Coyle:

      SENTIENCE: “Mind is a product of brain activity or of organized energy/matter, if you like.”

      STUART: In a sense this is true, but trivially so. It is the center of materialist philosophy but scientifically it is not an idea that gets you far. You cannot leap from this to “thoughts, as formations of energy, can radiate from brain and mingle with the lines of force in space-time “….

      SENTIENCE: So, if mind is not a phenomenon of an organization of energy/matter that vibrates at a certain frequency like the brain, then what is mind?

      As for thoughts, as per my hypothesis of thoughts constituting specific pulsations of EM energy, propagating in space, it’s know that electromagnetic radiation is associated with EM fields that are free to propagate themselves without the continuing influence of the moving charges that produced them, because they have achieved sufficient distance from those charges.

    • In reply to #80 by Stuart Coyle:

      From a physics point of view I cannot see anything in the human brain that could radiate energy very far. Thermal radiation is the most likely thing but it is simply a body at whatever normal body temperature is, and by definition thermal radiation does not carry much information (high entropy).

      SENTIENCE: If energy (due to work being constantly done by the system) enters a state of high disorder (increasing entropy) then:

      1) How is it possible to recall past thoughts in clear fashion without entropic effects disrupting our brain memories?

      2) If the energy of the sentient system, especially the human brain, becomes more disordered as age sets in, as per the classical view, then why do many of us become mentally sharper with passing time? One can remain mentally alert and intellectually efficient till the end provided the neuronal network is resilient enough and can withstand, to a large extent, the adverse effects of senescence. I have known people in their 70s displaying superior mental activity to the extent that the mental activity they displayed when they were younger was of an ordinary kind.

      So, the moot question is – is entropy reversible in localized regions of a sentient system like say the brain despite the overall entropy of the system increasing with time as more and more energy is used up and as senescence sets in?

  27. Computers are not complex enough structurally to manifest sentient behavior. If computers could be called “intelligent” despite the absence of sentient features in them then wouldn’t it be real easy to create life from scratch or from ready-made molecular chains and/or to revive a corpse? In machines, it is mechanical action at work using electricity as the power supply and human genius as the creative/guiding agent. Besides, machines, being made from metal or composites, are tougher than flesh and can withstand wear and tear more than a living tissue can. Plastics and other nonbiodegradables endure for millions of years, unlike organic matter like flesh/bones that decompose rather swiftly. Entropy affects, in larger or smaller measure, all systems whether machines or sentient beings. Finally, shouldn’t memory in living beings gradually fail as entropy increases in the brain and as senescence sets in unless in a sentient being certain aspects like the phenomenon of mind that’s related to neuronal networking and information processing can reverse, within certain limits, neurodegenerative effects due to entropy or genetic mutations and the person can age but yet retain a sharp memory or he could become mentally sharper in old age? Or, from a genetic point of view, harmful mutations if any can be offset by natural selection or positive environmental influences. Natural selection indicates consciousness at work in a living being.

  28. “I suspect that you will find that the surrounding tissue of the brain is a pretty good conductor, in which case no appreciable electrical field will pass through.”

    LOL. You meant “insulator” and not “good conductor”, right?

    Much more remains to be worked out about reality and the human condition.

    Best Regards.

    • LOL. You meant “insulator” and not “good conductor”, right?

      I do mean conductor. Electromagnetic fields do not penetrate through conductors. Think about this, light is an EM wave, it penetrates glass (a very good insulator) easily but is reflected off silver (a very good conductor), there are lots of frequency dependent effects but in general EM fields do not extend into conductors.

  29. Since any sensors outside the brain would not be able to decipher individual neurons, you’re losing information. I don’t think we have enough information about the brain yet to know how much information is or is not radiated outside the brain into the surrounding space due to this lack of precision. There’s another possibility. The sensory nerve endings spread out over the body pick up information and impulses from the environment and transmit them to the processing and cognitive centers in the brain and consequently the processed information is relayed back to specific parts of the body via motor nerves and so it could be the case that processed information in the form of thoughts could radiate back into the environment via these these nerve endings as EM lines of force. Later, out in the open space, entanglement mechanisms among EMR could serve to influence others who think along similar lines. In nature, that includes us, everything is a huge interconnected network of lines of force spread out in space-time.

    • In reply to #88 by pasha:

      Since any sensors outside the brain would not be able to decipher individual neurons, you’re losing information. I don’t think we have enough information about the brain yet to know how much information is or is not radiated outside the brain into the surrounding space due to this lack of precision….

      That is just pseudoscience. We don’t know much about how neurons are organized to represent concepts or modules like language in the brain yet but we know a good deal about the basic physics and chemistry of how they communicate information via electrochemical energy and there is absolutely no evidence that the firing of neurons could be even remotely powerful enough to be measured or communicated outside the organism’s body. Also there is absolutely zero evidence that humans or any other natural nervous system can in any meaningful way influence or communicate at the quantum level.

      • And, further, the energy involved, although electrical, is NOT what most people think.

        It is sodium and potassium ions moving across a membrane through gated channels and then being reset by pumps. The resting potential of a nerve cell is -70 millivolts. When triggered, some (very very few) ions move across the neuron membrane (due to their concentration gradient and charge) and this -70 millivolt potential is momentarily changed. The myelin sheath that insulates parts of the axon ensures what is called saltatory conduction… for a cool treatise on nervous impulses see http://www.biologymad.com/nervoussystem/nerveimpulses.htm.

        BTW, what’s next on this thread? PEW PEW PEW weapons and star wars? Are we gonna construct a death star???

        In reply to #89 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #88 by pasha:

        Since any sensors outside the brain would not be able to decipher individual neurons, you’re losing information. I don’t think we have enough information about the brain yet to know how much information is or is not radiated outside the brain into the surrounding space due…

  30. HUMAN EM FIELDS RADIATE FROM THE BODY:

    Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2

    The Human Electromagnetic Energy Field: Its Relationship to Interpersonal Communication

    William L Smith eic@scitechperspectives.co.uk

    Abstract: If there is one single concept that helps to explain much about human interpersonal communication, it is the concept that humanity has an inherent connection with its environment, the basis of which is human consciousness itself, something which is now quantifiable, at least on a theoretical basis. The electric charges coursing through the human brain are measurable by means of an electroencephalogram. Humans thus have an electromagnetic energy field. As a result of this, the human body could act as an aerial that has the potential for simultaneous transmission and reception of energy with its environment (Samways, 1992).

    Keywords: consciousness, superstring, electromagnetic energy.

    The single most important concept to comprehend is that human consciousness is now a theoretically quantifiable phenomenon and at least partially measurable as an electromagnetic energy field radiating out from the human body. Sarfatti defines human consciousness with a mathematical equation.3

    The basis for Sarfatti’s postulation can be found in the superstring theory of physics.4 In this theory of physics, it is asserted that the most fundamental particles of matter – for instance, protons, electrons and neutrons – are composed of infinitesimally small vibrating strings which combine with other strings of similar resonance. In this case, infinitesimally small would be about 100 billion billion times smaller than a proton.4

    To recap, from the angle of superstring theory, thoughts can be perceived as being composed of infinitesimally small, vibrating strings that have come together with strings of comparable frequency resonance. These strings, in turn, form larger subatomic and atomic building blocks of matter (i.e., electrons and neutrons), which in this case are the components of the electricity that makes for human consciousness and the concomitant resonating energy field emanating from a given human body as mentioned above.

    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/articles/4-2/Smith.htm

  31. In reply to #56 by aldous:

    In reply to #55 by jtveg:

    Scientifically speaking proofs only exist in mathematics

    I am not speaking scientifically. Why should I be? I am not a professional scientist and my education is in language, literature and philosophy. Have you considered looking up a dictionary to help you understand the…

    I said “scientifically speaking” because the question of the existence of God is a scientific one. He either exists or he doesn’t. I do not require a dictionary. Thank you very much. The fact that words can have a number of meanings is irrelevant if the person you are talking to knows what you mean. That is why I stated that “scientific proofs” only exist in mathematics. The same misunderstanding occurs when scientists use the word “theory”. In scientific usage “theory” is not a guess, hunch, or hypothesis. It is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. So saying “it’s just a theory” about a scientific theory shows you are referring to the wrong usage of the word. So too in science, proofs only exist in maths.

  32. As always , this argument could go on forever! This is possibly the one argument that philosophy like to ponder more than anything else! I think that everybody should concentrate on LIVING with the intention of making life for other people along the way as pleasant as possible!
    The burden of proof IS with those who claim to believe in a personal god. End of argument. Now get on and enjoy your next BACON sandwich, (I like mine with freshly chopped chillies and HP sauce!) and allow your mind to ponder the real problems in life, like “What are we going to do when the pigs run out?”! hohoho

  33. Ask the average Atheist, what would constitute proof of God; you are typically met with vagueness or a blank look! If God appeared to them, they’d later try rationalise it as hallucination, if a miracle happened they’d later find a supposed natural explanation for it………. 1) What came first matter or energy (or energy out of which popped matter) or something else???? 2) See 1 – how could either have always existed?? 3) Why & how did it start moving just under 14 billion years ago to form the Universe??? Why not say 100 or 1000 billion years ago (matter or energy sat there doing nothing for zillions of years, don’t give me that no time crap please – then all of a sudden without getting guided by anything moved to form the Universe a little under 14 billion years ago – yes Scientists really do say that with a straight face!)??? = that does not necessitate God did it (a.k.a. the usual childish & lame 10 year old school kid point that Scientists like Dawkins usually repeatedly normally following the answer ”We don’t know!” with) but which way is it heading? There is no scientific rational & non utterly absurd explanation of how it all got here, never mind a provable one & there never ever will be! The crackpot zany ideas of Laurence Krauss and others are just that crackpot Science Fiction, anything on paper can seem possible but go prove it! On Earth having neat coincidences like a sun not too far or too close, air right to breathe, resources, water, etc is explained away by science with a tired & lame – ”well there must be other planets out there with life & conditions perfect for it” = despite some thinking to the contrary ”there must be” IS NOT Science Fact, rather it is Science Fiction & pure conjecture, there is absolutely zero proof for life elsewhere (so life elsewhere, Roswell crash, UFO’s, etc & any other crackpot stuff! is just that unproven nonsense). If in say a million years if earth is still around & no life is found elsewhere, you think science will still be claiming ”there must be life elsewhere…it is not unique to earth” or it will start dawning ”actually in all probability we are alone in the universe.”? The explanation of Science on how exactly life started on earth & where things like consciousness, etc came from??? = lots of vagueness or unproven nonsense! How exactly did the first cells form or complex DNA sequences? > coming from a Big Bang (a random cosmic lottery if you like). Science and people like Dawkins are biased right from the start, they will never find proof of God for they have already dismissed any possibility of it & everything will be interpreted according with a ‘supposed’ natural explanation. To believe with zero intelligence the universe formed itself and life started on earth & it did so forming the universe just under 14 billion years ago = is Science FICTION and crackpot stuff, masquerading as Science Fact (or highly likely) & scientists really are saying it with a straight face.
    Incidentally people like Fred Hoyle thought the Big Bang nonsense, besides the obvious in actuality we know very very little about space – we can only physically travel so far in it or send probes so far / we don’t know if there are parallel universes or beyond certain point there are no more planets or stars / we don’t know how exactly measures and the fundamental forces were at the beginning / we have ZERO means of testing if the Universe really is the age claimed in science, nothing can accurately measure that far back, etc, etc , etc = yet despite all that (& much more!) we know the Universe was formed just under 14 billion years ago from a Big Bang LOL!!!!!! When someone says God or Intelligent Design is nonsense, pin them down on specifics of their alternative & watch for vagueness & unscientific unprovable nonsense – & of course you can be sure the ”yeh but that doesn’t mean God did it” pathetic school kid point will be in there somewhere too.

    • In reply to #98 by LionHall5:

      Ask the average Atheist, what would constitute proof of God; you are typically met with vagueness or a blank look! If God appeared to them, they’d later try rationalise it as hallucination, if a miracle happened they’d later find a supposed natural explanation for it………. 1) What came first m…

      Splitting my sides now but still not enough caps and exclaimation marks. Good use of question marks though. Fundies and crebots never understand that putting more than one doesn’t make it a better question.

  34. If I smacked you in the mouth and then asked you is there evidence of my fists existence you’d say ouch then yes. If you created a hundred trillion plus stars and 500 trillion plus planets AND LIFE. wouldn’t there be the teensiest bit of evidence of this creator ??

Leave a Reply