ANSWERS: 51
  • There is no scientific evidence that there is no God. There is no scientific evidence that there *is* a God. That is not a question that science is equipped to answer. There is plenty of evidence that the creation story presented in the Bible is not accurate, but there are certainly ways to think your way around that problem, too. There are plenty of old-Earth creationists and intelligent design adherents in the world, among other theories. Incidentally, a strict literalist reading of the Bible results in a date of creation around 4700 B.C. Given that Hebrew tradition allowed for geneaologies to skip generations in order to come up with more pleasing numbers, though, such a calculation cannot, in my opinion, be considered accurate.
  • People still "believe" (probably) because that's what is taught to them from childhood. It's very, very hard to change ingrained thought patterns, especially from childhood..and when they just don't want to see things any other way because they are convinced it's a "sin".
  • Its been roughly 2000 years since Jesus was born give or take a few years. But as, Midgardsormr, said theres no scientific proof to prove it either way. Believing in God requires faith not science.
  • faith. blind eye to reason. Childhood family values.
  • Because indoctrination breeds ignorance, and ignorance can justify everything. Here are some examples- The creationists argument that the earth is only 6k years old or so, even with all the countless evidence to the contrary. Fundie answer? -The bible never says earth years, a year could be 10k days for all we know! The argument that god is cruel if he has the power to stop all the suffering on earth and simply doesn't, and if he can't stop it than he really isn't god. Fundie answer? -Gods testing us! thats why we have fossils! God wants to test us with planted evidence, testing our faith! Darwins theory. Fundies answer? -The universe is to complex to have been made by 'chance' (clearly showing they don't understand darwins theory at all) it had to be made by an intelligent creator! Of course there are millions of more answers out there, but those are some of the most common.
  • Although there is scientific evidence that the earth was created by a molecule or whatever it is that they say created earth, my question for you is how did it get there? and Jesus was only alive for 2000 years there was life before Jesus's birth!!
  • The example you gave dont PROVE the inexistence of God. It simply proves that the Bible and science dont agree. I do not believe that God exists, but I cant prove it. Just as someone cant prove that God does exist. I understand the motivation for having God. I understand that it is a matter of faith. People believe in God for different reasons. Some people find comfort in believing they are "not alone". Others may believe to reconcile their immortality. Some believe it is God who gives them their ethics and morals. Some use God for their social connections, church services, bible studies etc.. a camaraderie between believers. Science, by the way says the universe has existed for some 20 billion years.
  • 1) There is no scientific evidence that there is no "god". There is no scientific evidence that there is a "god" either. The existence of a "god" is not the subject of science. 2) Between the views of religion and science, contradictions could appear if the religion affirms certain facts that contradict scientific observations or scientific laws. According to science, the earth is obviously older than just a few thousand years. There is not an "absolute proof" for this, but a very strong probability. It is impossible to prove with the scientific method that yesterday existed. Or even that the time five minutes ago existed. Theoretically, it could all have appeared as it is in the meantime. But such theoretical considerations do not help us to understand the world better. Science, in the contrary, does. 3) The fundamentalists of various religions have been sticking to some statements of their old texts. While science was building on observed facts and theoretical insights a new representation of the world, those fundamentalists had to elaborate an alternative representation of the world, based on the ancients statements considered as absolute truths, and the scientific facts and explanations which do not contradict them. Those which contradict them are a priori considered as false, as long as there is no overwhelming evidence that they are true. 4) There are also fundamentalists in the scientific community. Those fundamentalists consider all scientific explanations as absolute truths, and close their eyes if someone comes with a new explanation which does not agree with their own.
  • Jesus is known to have lived 2000 years ago. David lived about 3,000 years ago. Anyone who claims to be a "Christian" and yet says that the earth is only 2000 years old neither understands science, Christianity, nor the Bible. Did you know that many Christians believe that the creative days in genesis were not literal 24 hour periods. Why would they have to be? God is in no hurry, he has always been around. Certainly his view of time is different than mans. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4 billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20 billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events. The next point to note is that the word “day” is used in many different senses in the Bible. It does not always mean a 24-hour period. Sometimes it means only the hours of sunlight, that is, 12, more or less. Sometimes it stands for a year. Sometimes it means the years during a certain generation. In several references a day is 1,000 years, and in some even longer. No doubt the days in Genesis chapter 1 were very much longer. But the Bible does not there say how long they were. “Christians” who believe in “creationism” and the dogma of a literal 6 day - 144 hour creative period have misrepresented God and His Word and have stumbled many people.
  • TRY THIS: IT IS ONLY THEORY AT THIS STAGE, BUT AT LEAST, IT IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT!! THEORY RE TIME DISPARITIES FROM FALLEN TIMES As for the Q, per se, I just do not believe God would waste such huge amounts of time. If I were Him, I'd want to get down to the action and get the program under way! So, No. I believe He is a God of positivity, thrival and activity - not a wishy-washy, like ourselves. In Australian terms, He would 'get the ball onto the boot', not dither around like an old woman for billions of years! No! Actually, Chuck, YOU may as well be the Lucky One that I reveal my 'theories' to about this one, though I tend not to give these ideas away because they are, as yet, Unfounded - they are only speculation as to what may have happened. Whereas, what I have revealed and discovered about the snake & Man, THAT I have proven scientifically, and can put it all into place logically, for I also know that God is a God of Symbolism, and it is something that He would very likely do: make Man & snake as opposites, after what the beast did to Man in the Garden. Yes; it is something I would expect of Him anyway - as well as something I have proven for myself, scientifically, and written on. Now, the 2 Prime Keys to the successful possibility of evolution are: #1: The enormous time periods that are claimed to be involved #2: The dream that random Mutations could not only occur and result in successfully changed beasts, but also be capably reproduced via mutant reproduction with the original Mother population - another claim which has always been shown in nature to be quite unfounded – even impossible. I think My snake discovery basically accounts for the claims of Mutation here. God obviously deliberated in His Creation. Intelligence was at work in making these creatures as they are. But how to answer, IF we really need do so after this snake discovery, the "time" dilemma! Why do these earthly instruments today indicate an aged earth?? IF a theory was developed which was as provable as mine re the snake, BOTH legs upon which evolution stands would be completely ripped out from under foot! Right?? My THEORY is this [but remember, at present it is just mere speculation]: We know that this episode with the serpent resulted in a Fallen earth - in "Fallen Man" - God cursed ALL things! Previously, they were all immortal. Adam was told, before he failed, that he would live forever, except that "in the day that thou partakest of the tree of Knowledge thou shalt surely die". Now ALL things die as a result of Adam’s transgression, because Adam was given Dominion over all things - so they All fell with him. Now for all life to be able to live indefinitely, the condition of all things must have been vastly different from its current state! This is an obvious statement. But exactly What condition was it in to achieve such previous Immortality??!! This is the Question. I have answers, or ideas, but I do not have proof; so I say very little on my ideas. But I find many of my answers to life's Questions in Holy writ itself - as I found in snake! Now, there is possibility in considering that we can discover something of God's condition of life [After all, Before the fall, He walked and talked with Adam in the Garden] ... as I say, we can discover something of the presence of God when we recognize that Holy writ tells us that those who saw God were "quickened by the Spirit" in order to be able to do so. IF they had to be quickened by the Spirit to achieve this, then it is likely that ALL 'natural' processes, as we know them now were actually vastly Faster in the world of Immortality – when the earth was in its previous state! We also recognize, too, that Jesus, after His resurrection, suddenly appeared through the walls or roof, into the room of His disciples, and that He was physically present there, because they felt of the nail prints in His hands and in His feet, and, further, He then ate with them. He said to them, “Handle me and see that it is I, for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have.” So He was as physically present with them – as you and I are here today! How did He enter the room then? He must have been capable of vibrating the small molecules and atoms that make up the human frame in order to do so. If we are to put all of this together, it seems highly probable that molecules in the pre-Fallen earth state were operating at highly different rates and capacities re performance than we experience now. It is quite probable, for instance, that if processes were vastly superior and moving at vastly increased speeds than experienced today, then this would account for the time disparities that are apparent between the times claimed for Creation in Holy writ and the times that our current (Fallen) instruments seem to indicate as being the age, etc., of the earth and of the various other ‘aged’ items measured today.
  • They believe, as I do, because there is even far more powerful evidence of His presence, and IF you are referring to evolutionary theory for your "proof" that there is no god, more and more scientists are fidning more and more evidence against the assumptions of evolution. I, for instance, am but one of many ... and this is the discovery that I have made over 10 years: PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE, YET ASTOUNDING, BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU. EVOLUTION?? For myself, I do not just Believe ‘Biological Evolution of the Species’ NOT to be true, I have literally and uniquely PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. ‘HOW??’ you may ask … or ‘WHY THEM??’ They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, firstly discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon. ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature and life itself, in order to, simply, ‘differentiate species’. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are, necessarily, Both vertebrate, and require some similarity for survival – alimentary system, and other basics viscerals, etc. – to live efficiently and satisfy the very requirements of effective survival, according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival itself and of an effective and satisfactory existence, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist. OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The whole concept of opposites is purely mathematical. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point – is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana, as well – at 80% similarity. Despite the ‘DNA similarity’, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to satisfactorily survive, alive in nature – so that it exists and operates efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Is He not?? Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, having accomplished necessary efficiency and life survival apparati, similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among those similar survival organs and features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – a close study shows there is great opposition between the two. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory – in defining the types of life that exist. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them for His own specific purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible – Genesis, Chapter 3] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act – its Opposition to Man and God!! … all the more so when we consider, as well, that that same record declares that Man was created in the express image of God. [Genesis, Chapter 1] This recognition and acknowledgment makes the whole proposal of expressed symbolic opposition between Man and snake all the more significant, given the Biblical history. Now, may I acknowledge, immediately, that God, only, can be thanked for this Masterful Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … it came about totally, under His direction, guidance and revelation! ALL His acts and direction are Masterly – hence, His Great name: “The Master”. SO IN HIS GRACE TO US, LET’S JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY JUST A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!!” (Denis Towers) SNAKES VS MAN: Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external in Man Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs all year around performer… Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex copulation for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid, direct contact with external, strong vision… Audio: internal & almost non-existent vs eternal entry – prime means of communication Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured ‘skin’ vs…uniformity Also tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward & erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure in Man initiates life 2 peni vs singular penis Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous birth to young Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing & into small pieces Head 1st consumption of victim vs. rarely eat heads Retractible, curved, sharp teeth, pulling long-ways vs fixed, non-curved, mostly molar teeth, which effect direct up & down crushing effect on food Food totally meat – eaten alive vs mainly ‘picked’ and cleaned fruit & veges, etc. meat is killed, prepared and cooked. (Note that even among other carnivorous beasts, most include some vegetation) And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI: Some snakes have miniscule, Internal, unobservable, (supposed) less active pelvises. Again, in typical opposition between Man and snake, a man’s (woman’s, in particular) is more outwardly obvious, and forms part of the system of the leg. In similar opposite manner, again, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigially ‘buried’ in nature: I almost quite forgot another objector, MvL: Thanks to his observation, I learned, or realized, more particularly, yet another opposite between the two. (He was actually trying to introduce a point for the opposition camp[!], ‘poor fellow’): re the “Vestigial structures” he pointed out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So that was, as all else, very useful to our cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad MvL highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly, that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, this was, inadvertently, a good further point for our cause! NOW, further [Behavioural considerations re this new observation]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature of life, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variance with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless, if you examine them feature by feature! 3 THINGS ... virtually decide the issue [well, 4 really] but you always hold your Trump card for more opportune situations: 1. Diametric opposites over so many countless characteristics and sub-characteristics such as in the enormous Complexities of Man & the snake = [mathematical impossibility via chance Random mutation to achieve] especially given that even evolutionists declare mutations, as "’successful’ mutation” of increasing information are almost impossible– in other words, they virtually Never happen! 2. THEN, if you have managed to pretend to that mathematical impossibility, you THEN have to have BOTH of these creatures "select" for all those exact Opposites of characteristic in ALL of their ultimate life choices!!!!!!!!!!!! … which “ultimate” leads into: 3. You, THEN, have another enormous task to explain: How on earth did these 2 opposite creatures happen to live on earth at the very same miniscule period in the overall evolutionary experience of the two[??!!!!] – seeing that the claim of evolution is that Species CONTINUOUSLY change, forever! So surely, rather than both being here at this same miniscule time-period, either, one should have moved on millions/100,000's years ago, or, if that be not the case, BOTH should still be coming to some point where they may be opposite, but highly unlikely that it be at the very same time!! How is it they seem to have arrived at the same point (oppositeness) at the very same time?? BASICALLY, WHY ARE THEY BOTH HERE AT THE VERY SAME POINT IN “EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY” – THAT IS, AMONG THESE (SUPPOSED) MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF YEARS????!! Now, the Final point [not the 4th card, for that is trade secret] is that ONLY an act of deliberation could possibly account for such diametric oppositeness between 2 creatures. Now, fortunately, practically everyone I speak to about this discovery draws that final conclusion for themselves. Only the religiously anti-religious BLINDS HIS MIND TO GOD TO THE POINT THAT ‘GOD JUST DOES NOT EXIST’ [FULL STOP]! From my experience of such an one, it is merely his ‘determination to close on the recognition or acknowledgment of a God’ that prevents him drawing the only natural conclusion that can be drawn from this entire study. For further clarification, you might try the Book, as mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mere mini-list of the all-encompassing complete oppositeness: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS SIMPLE YET ASTOUNDING DISCOVERY WORLDWIDE! THANK YOU.
  • you know I think I will after reading all the answers here decide to veer off on another road of thought, There is no definitive proof there is or is not a god, we could all argue it day and night and no one could ever really win. BUT one does have to ask where does it all come from, there must be some "start" of it all, something that put the first thing there, some maker of it all. As an athiest even I can agree with that, but the thing is we do not know what or who made it all, and that's where the real problem is, I think a lot of people get into the arguement whether there is or is not a god that we forget to ask the question that IF there is a god, is this God YOUR god or my god or someone elses idea of god, is he/it ALL of them or none of them? What I mean is, is he the god you worship, the maker of you or us, is he the god in the bible or any other holy books. For all we know god may have made some species and then they made us, or god might just be some big mass of goo that self impregnates itself and shoots out universes from its womb..hell for all we know it could be a wad of cosmic grape bubble gum...we do not know. I think we could spend more time on discovering what or who the maker is than if it really exists...or better yet spend more time looking at where we are going and how we got where we are as a species and improve it instead of killing and fighting over religion
  • I will say only this. The Word of God states that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day.
  • Well actually, the Bible suggest (if we take 'day' literally and not as an expression of a certain amount of time) that the earth is roughly 6000yrs old. Then there is also the methods of 'dating' to be considered- a volcano erupted several years ago, later scientist tested objects from the nearby town that had been covered by lava and discovered that the method they were using is very inaccurate, objects less than 10yrs old tested in at 1.5million yrs old. Odd things like miners helmets and coke cans turn up in newly discovered caves that nobody has ever set foot in before and test in as being much older than they are. We know the earth shifts and the 'stable' ground is not always as stable as we think. My theory is heat plays a major role in how old something test in as, thats why the methods of testing that are used have such a large range of time that could result from these dating test. Though I could be very wrong.
  • The answer is very simple: Poor education. Our priorities lie not in the enrichment of the mind and the pursuit of knowledge, but rather in the quest for endless entertainment. Religion has always been the most entertaining story ever told, and therefore becomes comforting to the masses.
  • Scientific evidence that says the Earth is older than what the Bible "seems" to say is not evidence that God does not exist. Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony. The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 10,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm With love in Christ.
  • It happens for the same reason that people who, without proof of anything, insist that there isn't a God.
  • Normally, I reject the premise that you can use materialistic science to prove a spiritual God. However, it is possible to present EVIDENCE, if not proof, for His existence. There is no fundamental reason why the laws of our universe MUST be what they are in our universe. Likewise, there is no reason why the fundamental constants of our universe should be as they are. But life, and our universe as we know it, would not be possible if even one of many such variables were significantly different. Absent any naturalistic explanation for the orderly fulfillment of these multiple criteria, a logical assumption would be that some form of personal Intelligence must have been involved. This assumption is backed by the statistical probabilities of any one criteria favoring life multiplied by the number of criteria involved. Note that a personal intelligence would have the ability to choose an outcome, such as life, and then use whatever tools are available to it in order to facilitate this outcome. Randonmess ceases to be the driving force, and becomes a tool in the possession of such a directing Intelligence. Evolution represents a decrease in entropy, therefore the second law of thermodynamics (which says that the entropy of a system always increases) says that evolution as currently construed must be wrong. Atheistic Evolutionists point out that this second law applies only to closed systems, saying that in the context of the Earth, the "closed system" must include the Sun, which is pouring LOTS of energy onto the earth's surface. That's all well and good, but the sun is not a source of INFORMATION. Entropy applies because *information* degrades over generations of DNA mergers. The sun has absolutely nothing to do with this process. At this point, evolutionists will try to point out that 'in the extremely technical sense to which the second law applies, the sun is indeed a source of information - or, more simply stated, of order'. The problem with that statement is that order is NOT information. Ice crystals are ordered. HTML and DNA codes are not. There is a very strong link between information and disorder, but they are not the same thing. Information without a decoding key only LOOKS like disorder. The amount of information carried by a data stream is measured by how surprising the next codon is (see Shannon et al). The purpose of data compression is to remove all the orderly (i.e. predictable) data and keep the unpredictable (i.e. information carrying) data. Information technologists speak constantly of entropy and the desire to capture the informative part (data) while rejecting the uninformative (noise and transmission envelopes). The difficulty lies in that noise mimics information without actually carrying any useful data. Given, therefore, the fact that evolution without a directing Intelligence is statistically 'impossible', as are the creation of the physical laws and constants of our life-capable universe, the only rational conclusion one can make is that this universe and its contents are all the creation of one or more noncorporeal, hyperspace-dwelling Intelligence(s) capable of monitoring and modifying the statistical odds of any and all physical events, i.e., God.
  • I think that there is no actual proof of God because God does not want there to be proof. It is a challenge to our (God-given) faith and reason. Jesus said to him (Thomas), "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." If you think about it, there is more proof that God exists that there is that any of the following exist: • Love • Friendship • Patriotism • Duty • Community • Fidelity • Courage • And the like You know they are there, but can you prove it? But I am not really wise enough to make a good case. Here is a Reflection on God's Existence by Pope John Paul II: http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/sfbay_catholic__pope_jp2_on_go.htm With love in Christ.
  • Let me start this by saying that I respect your right to believe however you wish to believe. I am not trying to sway your belief. I will start by saying that I believe what I believe because of a different sort of faith. When I say faith, I do not mean it in the way you are implying(leap of faith, blind faith) but rather this definition: Faith: An active trust in something we have good reason to believe is true. With that being said, I have tried hard to find answers in science that were suitable to give me a reason to reject theism. Unfortunately, I find them all very lacking. At best I see some partial explanations for creation that upon inspection are held together with "science of the gaps", meaning "we don't know now but science will eventually come through". I have some real issues with Classical Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, part of which is the missing links in the fossil record, the lack of explanation for irreducibly complex molecular machines and the lack of time available to get to the level of complexity that this world is at. These are just a few, there are many more. The problem I have with Atheism is that it too is a truth claim . Its a truth claim about the non-existence of God that simply cannot be proven. The simple fact is that Atheism is a faith, based on the conclusions that go beyond the available evidence. I am not attacking atheists, I simply don't see the evidence pointing in the direction of the "blind watchmaker". If there was much better evidence for atheism, I would surley have become an atheist. I believe in being intellectually honest. Quite simply there just seems to be far greater evidence for a creator. I would need more sufficient evidence for the following: - The cosmological constant - The evidence of biological information present in DNA - A suitable explanation for my consciousness - A better answer than we came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing - A suitable explanation for abiogenesis - This list goes on an on. With the evidence today pointing towards a creator, I had to ask myself, of the worlds known religions, are there any that provide any level of evidence that is worthy of examination??? but thats another question.
  • Unfortunately it is their 'faith'. Personally I suspect that it will, at some point, get back to the fear of death we all have and the hope that, if their particular belief about their particular god or gods is true, they won't die but have a nice, eternal life somewhere comfy. From that stems a real need for whatever god they're following to be true. It has to be their god - if it was someone else's then their eternal life would be in doubt.
  • Where is the proof that God does not exist? Is such proof even possible? Atheism is a faith - based belief that there is no God. Us religious folk have a few texts and accounts that we may rely on. Sure, some people get disilluisioned and decide that there is no God, but then some people are hard-line atheists who suddenly decide that there is a God and that that God is looking after them. Whose testament should I believe? On a related note, did religion just 'evolve'? If religion is false, then why is it so damn robust? I mean, look at, say, the Catholic religion. I am not Catholic but hey, a system that encourages celibate priests - you'd expect it to go extinct within a generation or two. Does a religion really become stronger because a handful of blokes decide not to mate and pass on the 'religion gene' (Oh, I get it, they must have been too weak to survive anyway, is that it?) I tell you from hard experience that the ideals of "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek" are not exactly the smartest of moves survival-wise. Or are they? How? Back to your question: Really, we end up choosing what we believe and 'finding' evidence to back it up (just like they teach at sales school, but feel free to question that too). There's a whole intricate universe in front of you and yet you choose to believe it just 'happened', with no creator. A couple of holy books have stood up to the test of time but apparently they are just some evolutionary accident ... I'd argue that you deliberately close your eyes to the evidence available because you take it for granted. Just as you don't notice the pressure of the atmosphere pushing onto your skin, you don't recognize the universe as a highly sophisticated creation. We think we're so clever because we created the car but in order to build a car we need a bloody huge car factory. We need to physically feed the car with a highly refined product (petrol), and if the car gets a dent then the dent stays. In the mean time, a horse will feed itself, minor scratches heal themselves, and in order to make another horse you just put two horses together - no bloody big horse factory necessary. Who was smarter, the inventor of the car or the inventor of the horse? The universe "just happened" and it just so happens that it keeps on "happening". "In the beginning there was nothing. Which then exploded." Can you really replace one genius with a hundred dumb-asses and get the same result? The "other" theory seems to just say that given an infinite amount of time and space, chuck in some randomness and a universe will just "happen"*. Well what if we continue along that line of thought? You'll end up with a bunch of excited physicists explaining the math involved with universes that build themselves, plus universes that are created by a God, including ones with earth balancing on top of pillars and elephants ... "To the church of "(I can't remember where)" say this: You are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were one or the other but instead you are luke warm and so I spit you out ..." Maybe you're better off staying atheist, but just make sure you're a damn good one. If God wants you then he'll come and grab you. * What if that is true? Do we say that proves God doesn't exist or do we say that proves God doesn't leave anything to chance?
  • Could god be an alien?
  • Give me evidence that he doesn't and don't say all the bad things in the world b/c those are done by man not God.
  • Anyone who says that Earth is only 200 years old doesn't understand science or even religious beliefs. Also, the proof is that Earth is WAY over 2 million years old. More like 4.5 BILLION years.
  • the bible is proof that can stand the test of time.
  • the bible is proof that will stand the test of time
  • Some people need religion like they need to drink or do drugs because they can't cope with reality and the god delusion offers them that escape. No matter what the evidence, they'll always let their fantasy override reality. There's none so blind as he who does not want to see
  • i am not judgeing or trying to critizize anybodies belief or non-belief....i was raised in a strict southern baptist home and until i was 12 i wondered the same thing. how do you believe in someone with no physical proof. i would go to church, read the bible, pray... then when i was 12 God showed me he existed. i was at church and brother lawerence was preaching at a rivival and at some point during his surmon i opened my heart.i had a sudden urge to sprint to the altar and pray. i had a conversation with God. noone but me could hear it but it wasnt my imagination. God works in his own time and someday he will work on your heart...when he does you will know he exist...whether or not you open your heart and exept that God gave his only son so sinners like you and me could have a everlasting life...you will know he exists.
  • Do YOU have any evidence as to where you're going when you DIE? How do you know for sure? The only thing you've got is what the Bible tells you and me. Heaven and hell is our choices. We currently have the luxury of reading and seeing people that have been to both of these places. Will you believe the testimony? How much evidence will it take to get you to believe?
  • All i know is that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. Too many absolutely perfect conditions for man to exist in this galaxy on this planet. One random molecule would create a catastrophe.
  • First of all scientific evidence is given by human beings that only have so much knowledge. People make mistakes. Do you know that SCIENTISTS believed the earth was flat for hundreds of years. You can not put your faith in people. They know nothing except what their small minds allow. God is not logical. If you think in your capacity you won't believe. He even says that in the Bible. Also there is no proof God does not exsist and there never will be because HE IS ALIVE. The world wants to prove God doesn't exsist because then they don't have to be accountable for their actions on earth. Please don't be so easily tainted. There is a quote in the Bible I love and it moves me. I'm going to tell it to you and hopefully you will hear the truth when reading it. "This is how the Judgment of God works The light has come into the world but PEOPLE LOVE THE DARKNESS rather than the light because their deeds are Evil. Those who do evil things hate the light and will not come to the light because they do not want their evil deed to be shown up but those who do what is true come to the light in order that the light may show that what they did was in obideience to God." Remember Jesus believes in you even if yu don't believe in him. I promise you He exsists!
  • Because people are fools.
  • Fear is a very powerful emotion, one that religion depends on to exist. It blinds people from using common sense and seeing things from a rational perspective. Also it doesn't help to be surrounded by like minded individuals. Their numbers make them feel like they must be doing something right. This is obvious when you see religious people call less popular religious people cultists.
  • Sorry but no one can prove one way or another whether or not God actually exists. That's what faith is all about.
  • I'd like to know the passage that states the Earth is only 2000 years old. I've never run across that one. Would you please let me know where it is? I remember being taught in school that recorded history was only a few thousand years old. Perhaps that person had their topics mixed up?
  • I really need to point this out. 'Scientifical' XD Ok, people are idiots. Done. Incidentally, using the bible as a guide, the earth (and everything for that matter) is only about 6000 years old.
  • Can't believe everything you read.
  • I believe in God because I look at space and the planets and Human Beings and existance as we know it. How was space created how were all the galaxies created. Athiest say the big bang theory but noone saw the big bang therefore it isnt an absolute fact. If it did happen then where did the big bang come from. Science cant explain the creation of all existance and it never will. How can our finite minds even comprehend such an event as the creation of existance.
  • Where is the evidence?
  • Never understimate the stupidity of people in large groups
  • I found this articel to ne interesting http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/universe.html It's a bit technical but the summary at the end makes the point.
  • There are many reasons. Some people choose not to inspect the evidence, or even entertain the possibility of their religion being wrong. Others hold science up to impossible standards requiring 100% proof (something science isn't designed to do) before they will even listen.
  • Look at it from a sense of there is no concept of time, years in the bible are on a different scale you could say in a sense. That's a theory I've heard, but remember, in Christianity it all comes down to belief. Even the big bang theory is considered out of the question, simply put there is no evidence towards it, only those who believe in it's probability. So, in everything it comes down to what you believe. I have what I believe and others have their belief on the matter, and we all have that right. I have my faith, and that is enough for me, but know this, there is actually much evidence being discovered that actually is proving the bible to be on a factual level, like an ancient wall that was discovered. It only had a single reference in history, the bible. I am not trying to push anything, I am only providing what I hope can be some valuable insight into your question.
  • I believe in God, I believe in the creation. I dont believe in evolution at all. Now, far as the age of the earth goes, I have no idea. I wont claim to believe its 2 million yrs old or 2 thousand yrs. I simply dont know.
  • Here is one basic thought. I am not usually one to quote scripture, but if you look at Genesis 1:28, it states," And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth," by using the word replenish if refers to RE-Populating, not populating for the first time. This could explain why Dinosaurs, etc., are not mentioned since they were part of what was before the REPLENISHING.
  • Show me where in the bible does it say that the earth is 2000 years old? People believe... Because some people are genitically predisposed toward faith. It can be mapped in your DNA. Meaning those of us that know... Just do. You bunch are out of the club!
  • The fact you stated in the question is not evidence that there is no God. Just because religious texts are incorrect, doesn't mean there is no God!
  • Well, actually there is absolutely no scientific evidence that there is no god. There is a lot of evidence that ties in with certain religious scripture and plenty that contradicts other bits. Human society is really only roughly 10k old. There seems to be scientific reasoning for a lot of the tales from the bible. I came across a program that suggested that neanderthal tools were actually better designed compared to stoneage man's tools. This would imply a few very interesting points, that potentially they were smarter than homo-sapiens. Also that there must be another reason that homo-sapiens flourished while neanderthals died out. Potentially society, unity through common assosciation with early religious figures helped our species to flourish. The earth could have been made 2 million years old with dinosaurs bones buried in it.
  • The popular debate lies within the fact that there is scientific evidence that stories and teachings within the bible are not scientifically accurate. If the bible isn't "True" than that leads some to conclude that "God" doesn't exist. I really don't think there's any scientific evidence disproving or proving the existance of "God" himself.

Copyright 2017, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy