Question:
Is it possible to have undeniable proof either for or against any religion?
Erin
2014-05-29 11:02:46 UTC
And to best answer my question, here is how I wish for you to answer:

First, put yourself in the other party's shoes (i.e., if you're atheist, pretend you're a theist for the purposes of answering this question; if you're a theist, pretend you're an atheist.) Any religion or religious stance can be used.

Second, using logical arguments with NO LOGICAL FALLACIES, no coincidences, and as much proof as physically possible, prove that your pretend religious stance is undeniably true. If you think this is impossible, try your absolute best and just make the best answer you can. Take pride in your work :)

Third, (this step is optional) go back to your original religious stance and give me undeniable physical proof either for or against higher power(s). This should NOT be rants for or against religion. This part is strictly for higher power(s), and as such, NO RELIGIOUS TEXTS CAN BE USED AS PROOF FOR THIS STEP.

Thanks, from your friendly neighbourhood agnostic :)

As an aside, to any who simply answer things like "well god is true so the end" or "well religion is stupid and cant exist and is logically impossible", if you answer stuff like that then I'll assume that you have absolutely no proof for or against religion because that answer is (in my opinion) stupid.
39 answers:
anonymous
2014-05-29 11:06:35 UTC
The only undeniable thing about religion is the damage it has done to humanity everywhere it touches us. And the undeniable fact that there are NO facts pointing toward religion being correct, and MANY facts pointing away from deities and magical beings.

It is undeniable that they have not a leg to stand on when making claims about some god thing or other..
anonymous
2014-06-01 10:19:42 UTC
Religions are man made entities and so will have flaws.



God's existence is not contigent on human institutions.



Do the math!
anonymous
2014-06-03 07:56:29 UTC
God made it possible to know Him in a personal way, and to live in relationship with Him, through one religion only.
?
2014-05-29 13:16:15 UTC
i think its possible to have irrefutable proof to prove ONE Faith and the existence of God and Jesus and angels.

however no atheist will believe in the first place, so, there is not proof for those that will not listen to logic or reason.

those that follow logic often get a question of logic "wrong" therefore their logic becomes irrefutably "wrong" forever thereafter, until they change their definitions and exclusions.
Toke Lover
2014-05-29 11:05:38 UTC
absolutely.



certain religions claim that aliens exist on certain planets....go there.....



find aliens, as described, then proof that religion is true.....go there & find none, proof it's bogus....



MOST religions can't be that easily sorted, but there are a few.....



PS: hey dude - it's your question & you put the "ANY" religion into it....ROFL....not me.



I don't gots to follow your rules 'cause you aint even asking a question but trying to force peeps down a tunnel to your pre decided conclusion.....



This fool just challenged your "fool proof" trap, LMAO
anonymous
2014-06-04 20:54:29 UTC
YES THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND GOD NEVER LIES...
?
2014-05-29 11:21:20 UTC
God has made it abundantly clear: faith is required. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). He has said that He has made mankind in such a way as that His eternal power and divine nature are understood from the things that are made (Romans 1:20) so that everyone is "without excuse". He has also imprinted on man's being to know that there is an after life (Ecclesiastes 3:11).



While Abraham was in Paradise, he was asked of the proverbial rich man, who was in torment in Hades (Hell), could Abraham send Lazarus, the beggar now also in Paradise, to be sent to the rich man's family to warn them of the consequences of choosing the wrong path. Abraham replied, and pay attention this carefully, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31). There you have it. You call for "undeniable proof" - as you define it - even though you know that God exists by virtue of the creation and in your own heart you know that you will be called to account for eternity. And, God has said, He demands faith. You have only two choices: 1) comply with God's request; or 2) spend eternity in Hell. You do not make up the rules; He does.



So, why is "faith" required? Other beings that God created are the angels. And they may not have been made in God's image as was man (Genesis 1:27). We do not know for sure. Further, there is no indication that God loves the angels; to be fair, it is also not stated in the Bible that the angels are not loved by God. But there was a war in heaven and Satan took a third part of the angels with him (a conclusion drawn from Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 9:1 and 12:4). Those that warred against God were cast out and will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. No apparent plan or mechanism was provided for the “fallen” angels so that they could repent and get back into God’s graces. Thus, no salvation for them if they “sinned”. Again, you ask, why does God not simply announce Himself to everyone and let people accept Him based upon that revelation of Himself. My take: God already tried that with the angels. That is their lesson to us.



Now, God tells us that He loves us. But our sins separate us from Him. Sinners cannot be in His presence because of His holy nature. And, why did God create us in the first place? That is not really directly revealed in the Bible, except by inference in the account of the Garden of Eden and how man and God freely interacted with each other, face-to-face, etc. Conclusion: we were created for fellowship with Him.



Despite this one-on-one relationship with God (in the Garden), we sinned and then were separated from Him. Thus began the path of reconciliation, of redemption, of salvation from our sins, that was accomplished by God, and not ourselves, to restore that fellowship. The creation of Israel and then the birth, suffering, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of God’s one and only Son, Jesus, is that redemption - for our sins. Otherwise, there is no act, work, or path that we can do or take which redeems us to God’s satisfaction. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5-7).



So, then we still ask, why faith? Because we are left with nothing else that we can do and nothing else is asked of us: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8,9)



Simply put, we are saved by faith and faith alone in the work of Jesus.
anonymous
2014-06-02 22:53:21 UTC
YES THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND GOD NEVER LIES...
anonymous
2014-05-31 16:48:23 UTC
YES THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND GOD NEVER LIES...
anonymous
2014-05-31 13:42:13 UTC
No
anonymous
2014-06-06 00:41:45 UTC
If it was possible to have undeniable proof of religion, we would have it.
anonymous
2014-06-02 13:25:42 UTC
Religions are man made entities and so will have flaws.



God's existence is not contigent on human institutions.



Do the math!
anonymous
2014-06-02 00:30:58 UTC
God made it possible to know Him in a personal way, and to live in relationship with Him, through one religion only.
anonymous
2014-06-01 07:13:47 UTC
Religions are man made entities and so will have flaws.



God's existence is not contigent on human institutions.



Do the math!
anonymous
2014-06-01 04:48:36 UTC
Religions are man made entities and so will have flaws.



God's existence is not contigent on human institutions.



Do the math!
anonymous
2014-05-31 14:01:51 UTC
If it was possible to have undeniable proof of religion, we would have it.
Pamela
2014-05-29 18:45:13 UTC
I will not presume to speak for other faiths but when it comes to Jesus- He has no interest in providing undeniable proof to those who do not trust Him.

Undeniable proof is not His tactic. Undeniable proof forces us to accept what is presented. It is by definition undeniable and therefore unarguable and must be accepted whether we like it or not. This is not how He deals with us.



Jesus offers Himself along with plenty of evidence to help encourage us to seek Him because we want to know Him. He wants our hearts given freely. He desires our trust- our love and gratitude. These things can not be forced from us. He let's us choose.



Proof does not. Proof doesnt care about our heart or our love. Proof demands acknowledgement regardless of what we feel. That is acceptance by force and Jesus will not do that.



The hard heart will never get proof. He is like a bridge and proves Himself only to those willing to trust Him.
Kal Alvar
2014-05-29 15:37:20 UTC
As an atheist I shall answer thusly:



First, from the perspective of a theist.



I don't remember the exact quote(s), but as far as I know, there are numerous passages about how only those who accept Jesus can truly understand what God and Jesus is all about. So atheists cannot understand God and therefore cannot use arguements to refute things they do not understand nor comprehend. That is a point you could make, but I can point out a problem or two with that arguement.



While god might not be all powerful, all knowing, nor all good, that doesn't mean that god can't do things that we cannot comprehend, fathom, or even contemplate. Being all powerful means being able to do everything. But since god is not all powerful (sorry, he isn't and I won't say he is), that doesn't prevent him from doing powerful things, like raising the dead. This goes for being all knowing and all good as well. He is not those things, but that doesn't mean God is not able to know amazing things, or do great things.

There is the teleological argument of course which states that all that exists has been designed. As it was created, and since it was created and came into existence, then something had to cause that beginning and original existence. Since nature is one of these designs, it only logical to conlude that God is the force behind that creation and he is the creator (because anything designed has to have a designer, otherwise, how was designed? By nothing?)



This is evident in nature. We see fibanochi's sequence in a vast majority of plants and animals, from their shells to the way trees grow in the spring.



This design is also evident in the way the rest of the universe looks. Why are flowers so pleasing to the human eye? Why need beauty instead of just biological functions? Why do bees need an attractive flower?



Or perhaps how only one planet in the entire solar system is suited for live in a percentage of it's area? Very few other planets are seen that can support life in the universe, if any.



The way that animals and plants are so complex is proof that they could not have come into existence on their own. Even through evolution, DNA, polyploidy, and the logical design of animals and plants with such an intuitive sense of the best way a plant or animal works is proof that God exists.



Lastly, humans. We are the only species on earth that can think the way we do, act the way we do, and do the things we do. Why are we special? Because that is what God intended of us.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Third:

Higher power of what? Well lets start with the Abrahamic God. Many have claimed that he is outside our reality, yet he may act upon it. Which would mean it is impossible to find evidence for or against a higher power ( a god like one) until we can successfully enter the dimension in which this being resides.



However, I can prove that nothing can be all powerful, all knowing, nor all good.. He cannot make himself know more than there is. So either he knows everything but is not all powerful, or he is all powerful, but does not know everything.



But he is not all powerful because he cannot make a rock he cannot lift.



And he is not all knowing because, all knowing means knowing EVERYTHING. Including knowing what it is like to enjoy being evil from knowing that from experience. But god is all good, so he can't know that, which means he is not all knowing.



Even if God were to understand what it feels like to be evil from the perspective of someone else, and hence not ACTUALLY feel that feeling, God is maximal. In other words, better than everyone at everything. Which means he would have to enjoy being evil MORE than anyone in the planet. Not only that, but he would have to know what it feels like from experience to enjoy being the most evil person on the planet, which since he is maximal or all powerful, means he cannot get that from seeing/feeling it through the eyes of another person. That being said, god is not all powerful, so I can't use that argument.



So let's use another. Not using anything from scripture or the bible: If someone is all good, how can they exist at all? Let me explain. All good means no evil. None of it. If God is all good, why would he allow evil to exist? Not talking about Satan or anything, but in general. Of course if god cannot stop evil from being there and he is doing his best, then he is still all good. So let's go a bit further. If God is all good, then that means that anything that god CAN do is good. Well lets look at the world around us shall we (and I won't use scripture here).



God is not all knowing and not all powerful. This means there are things he cannot do. What those things are I don't know, but I don't need to when subjective morals exist. There are times when stealing is wrong and when it could be considered right. There are situations when one simply cannot do the right thing.



Brief story of Winston Churchill if I may: Late in the way, Britain cracked the German code and intercepted a message saying there was going to be a bombing on a city of Britain's. When asked what the evacuation plan was going to be Winston replied, "Nothing. No evacuation." Why one might ask? Because then the Germans will know that we cracked their code and they will get a new one. The war will be longer and more lives will be lost than just one cities worth. Alternatively, saving the people in the city are lives that one KNOWS can be saved. So what do you do? Prolong the war and save innocent people? Or use the code to your advantage to prevent the possibility of more of these bombings to occur? I don't think there is a real answer.

If he isn't all good nor all powerful, then he can be all knowing, but wait....no he can't. Why? Because that would imply that he knows how to be all powerful and all good, but chooses not to, or isn't. How does that prove he isn't all knowing? I'm getting to that.



IF god knows HOW to be all powerful and all good, then he knows he cannot be all powerful and all knowing at the same time (as indicated above). He can be one or the other. But he cannot be all powerful (also as indicated above) therefore he does not know how to become all powerful. Which means there is something he cannot know.



Now in general higher powers:



Well as nothing can be all powerful or all knowing, I don't see why, with enough technology and probably soon-to-be-forbidden-experiments humans could become the "higher" power of another world.



Nothing is stopping an insanely advanced race from doing any of this. In fact, I think this is completely possible to do for a highly advanced civilization. We can already replicate life and can teach robots how to develop personality (kind of), so what is stopping us from being or becoming that higher power?



In all reality, I think the likelihood of a higher power to be possible, but not in the sense of a magical being, just extremely advanced technology.



Here is why. There is no evidence to support it. I know, it's a weak argument, but there has been NOTHING to support it. At all. Ever. In the history of shits and giggles, nothing has EVER happened that implied there was a higher power. But technology, while it hasn't proved nor disproved the existence of a magical higher power, it has given humans the tools and insights to theorize and propose mechanisms and tools, and even begin with making life from literally chemicals. Or robotics. Or synthesizing living cells from scratch. Science has shown that using advanced technology (at this rate, who knows how advanced. could be tomorrow could be 100 years from now) a species could become a "higher power" with the power to do all these things. Which would be incredible.



That is my answer. You asked for it. In all it's long, splendid glory.
anonymous
2014-05-29 12:49:51 UTC
Yes, of course there is but your assumption is PURE IDIOCY.



“[B]elief can never be halfhearted. […] There may be plenty of compelling arguments for a man’s credibility; but no argument can force us to believe him.”



belief is something other than the result of a logical process; it is precisely not ‘a conclusion from premises’. ‘For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.’”



Proof is only to the intellect. The will is in most people more important.
Slickterp
2014-05-29 11:41:44 UTC
If it was possible to have undeniable proof of religion, we would have it.
PBUM
2014-05-29 11:26:48 UTC
The fact of the matter is I used to be a christian and am now an atheist. If I could possibly think of a good reason to be a christian I would still be a christian. Your rules for answering your question are kind of stupid.
catholic199_returns
2014-05-29 11:22:09 UTC
If you are honestly looking for God to befriend Him... He will help...



You don't even need any formal prayers... Just tell Him how you are doing... He wants to hear from you
?
2014-05-29 11:19:56 UTC
Religions are man made entities and so will have flaws.



God's existence is not contigent on human institutions.



Do the math!
Fitz
2014-05-29 11:18:14 UTC
Are the principles of logic sufficient as evidence for you? They can disprove concepts quite effectively.



The bible claims God is omniscient, yet within its pages he: experiences regret, changes his mind based on new information, and gets many historical and scientific facts incorrect. These things are not possible for an omniscient being. God is therefore a logical impossibility that cannot exist as he is presented and claimed to be. I could cite hundreds of examples from the bible, but these three make going any further a moot point. However, a generic deity with no claims (like the deist god) cannot be disproven.



The general belief in that which cannot be shown to be real is illogical at it's core, but you specified physical evidence, which is impossible since we're addressing a non-physical concept. We can disprove claims from the texts that fall into the physical realm (such as the sky not being a solid firmament), but we must then go back to the claims of omniscience. So I have not disproved that ANY god exists, but the Abrahamic god cannot exist AS CLAIMED. So the god they "claim" is not possible, and therefore disproven.
The Eye
2014-05-29 11:17:33 UTC
Is it possible to completely disprove the idea of a god?



Well... no.

all things considered, we're a relatively young as a species and we're only just starting to be able to observe the universe and come up with profound, supported idea for how some of it's inner workings tick. We can just barely grasp some of the wide array of phenomena we witness in the stars above. Even so, we discover these new variables at an almost frightening rate and develop new ideas and theories for how it fits into our established knowledge base JUST as fast.



Even so, we're still only up to having a look at the rocks on the planet next door... to put it bluntly: What the hell do WE know about the universe at large?

There MIGHT be a god. granted, we've seen nothing to say there isn't, we've seen nothing to say there is (and for the cliche rhetoric spewing creationists out there, No, the fact that the universe is there is NOT proof of a god, go back to grade-school).



for all our cunning and brilliance as humans, this is a question we may never, ever get to answer.....



.....But. saying that, we're more than just a little bit of VERY certain that, whether there is a god or not, it has nothing to do with the bible....

here's just the Short version of the short list of short reasons: talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking.... bushes... Noah's ark, the biblical time-line vs the historically accurate time-line, "iron Chariots", flat earth and.... Auschwitz.







normally after making a statement, it's fashionable to include a line form scripture, so... here goes:

__________________________________________________







future prophecies 18:11 "and god looked upon his self-proclaimed followers, he did pick up their holy scriptures, the bible, and god did utter "what in buttery goodness be this bull****? Who amongst thou number wrote this? I shall smite them, for it reads worse than twilight fan fiction! Thou characters be fake and one-dimensional! naught happens for any good reason.... and then there be of art this section here! How doust thou stand for this bitterness and un-needed hatred?"



God did then decide that his faithful servants were a bunch of psychos and he vowed that they must find a different god, for he was done with this ****.



The crowd cried out and wailed "Oh god! why hast thou forsaken us!?!"



And god did reverse and say unto the flock "Were you not listening!?! because you're assholes!"
PaulCyp
2014-05-29 11:16:24 UTC
God made it possible to know Him in a personal way, and to live in relationship with Him, through one religion only.
?
2014-05-29 11:14:26 UTC
No, and I always assume the positive stance. When I debate scripture I am doing it from the position that it is true. But contradictory.

No, neither side can prove it. Believers want "personal truth" to be proof, and while that is a valid basis for belief it is not proof.

Non believers cant prove their position either, because science is never going to be able to prove a personal truth.

This is a standoff, and I don't want to fight it any longer. I do, however, enjoy a good debate about religion, but I don't try to steal faith, ever. Theft is wrong, no matter what you might be stealing.
Rhys
2014-05-29 11:09:00 UTC
No. The absence of something does not prove its inexistence.



Religion is faith. Faith doesn't require proof. Prove religion, and you lose faith.
randi
2014-05-29 11:08:22 UTC
theism deals with BELIEF which is different from KNOWLEDGE of a god.

I think you're confused about the meanings of theism/atheism versus agnosticism(gnostic means knowledge)





*belief in something is different from *knowledge in something
2014-05-29 11:05:51 UTC
The burden of proof is the responsibility of those making the claims of existence/efficacy. Be it "My god exists" or "My herbal supplement cures cancer", it is up to those making the positive claims to verify them to the world. The lack of those making the claims of existence/efficacy are why I equally do not believe in Jesus, Allah, Ra, Big Foot, Alien Abduction, Homeopathy, Psychic Powers, and so on and so forth.



▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬

► Philosophic burden of proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

► Legal burden of proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

► Null Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬



It is not up to "Atheists" to debunk anything, all we can do is continue to study reality and if the results of that study contradict the claims made, then so be it...



Theists seem to be unaware of the fact that the only think stopping the whole world from accepting their position is EVIDENCE. Regardless of which of the 30,000+ gods, goddesses, and other forms of major and minor deities, demigods, and hundreds of thousands of various other paranormal creatures dreamed up by man they believe in.



▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬

► List of Gods:

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm

► God Finder

http://www.godfinder.org/

► A big list of Gods (but nowhere near all of them)

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

► God Checker

http://www.godchecker.com/

▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬



The claims made by theists, homeopaths, etc. are HUGE... Yet there is no evidence to support or validate them... This says far more than anything a non-believer might do to try and 'Disprove' their claims.



The silence of the gods is deafening.
anonymous
2014-06-06 10:34:44 UTC
No
anonymous
2014-06-02 17:50:05 UTC
If it was possible to have undeniable proof of religion, we would have it.
anonymous
2014-05-29 21:03:50 UTC
If it was possible to have undeniable proof of religion, we would have it.
?
2014-05-29 11:57:46 UTC
Yes. You can disprove any religion which claims that an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God created the universe. The existence of evil 100% falsfies the claim that such a God exists.
DP.
2014-05-29 11:51:31 UTC
Your question masks itself in a cloak of logic that is at best superficial.



Firstly proof is subjective and an illusionary concept. If I decided to be awkward I could actually say you can't even prove you exist. How do I know you aren't a figment of my imagination or that we aren't in the Matrix? If you can't prove you exist how can I prove to you a potentially non-existent being that God exists? It's just dribble.



Secondly undeniably is vapour. Even if I caught you red handed stealing in circumstances that might be considered undeniable you could deny everything - many criminals do! There is therefore no such thing as undeniable.



Logically it seems self evident to me that there is neither the kind of proof you speak of for the existence of God or the non-existence of God. In the absence of proof either way you are left with only one choice... waying up the balance of probabilities. On that score I personally find that the balance weighs heaviest for their being the God the Christian Bible... In simple terms let me elaborate...



There is to my mind more evidence for their being a God than not based on the simple fact that more people feel a God calling than not. This might mean mass illusion but is more likely to mean there is something we might call God.



If there is a God, one of three possibilities exist..

1) He’s not involved with His creation

2) He was was involved but is no longer

3) He is still involved.



Not involved doesn’t make any logical sense. Why would He bother creating us and the earth in first place?



Been involved but then isn’t has zero evidence and we’d expect some evidence or testimony if this were the case.



This means that on balance of logic probability means there is more likely to be a God than not and that this God is more likely to be involved with us and His creation than not.



If God created us and has some involvement in our lives then the question becomes what happens to us when we die? Do we

1) All automatically go to be with him in heaven (God’s home) no matter what we’ve done ?

2) Some of us to heaven depending on criteria

3) None of us are going to heaven



Before we decide on this issue we should address the issue of instruction. If God is involved in our lives then we can have three beliefs about instruction..

1) God gave precise and error free instructions (Holy Book)

2) God inspired some Holy works but they were never put together errror free

3) God didn’t bother with any kind of instruction or book.



God not giving any kind of book doesn’t logically reconcile with his involvement in our lives or the fact that all religions have a instruction manual (holy book).



An errored instruction book likewise doesn’t make sense for several reasons. Firstly if the main purpose of such a book is to show how God wants us to live, think, beleave, act, speak, etc. then errors would make it a guessing game as to what was right and wrong. God could hardly expect us to know if the instruction included errrors. Secondly if God is God He could have ensured there were no errors.



This leaves us with the balance of logic probabilities being that there is an error free instruction book out there.



Logically there is a God, who is involved in our lives and who has given an error free instruction book.



Now the question is – which book?



That's another question for another time but suffice it to say that my own (somewhat indepth) investigations led me to conclude that the bible is the book.



That was all just based on logic - not a single bible verse!



For me this is only part of the story. There was so much more confirmation within the bible pages, words from Christians and my own experiences with God that leave me fully convinced of the faith I hold.
Paul
2014-05-29 11:35:42 UTC
"Possible?" Sure.

Plausible? No.



By the way, a "logical argument" wouldn't be "undeniable proof." It would simply mean that the argument you're making is logically sound. If that argument has to do with the actual existence of something (a "god" for example), then a sound logical argument doesn't "prove" such a thing exists. You'd need verifiable evidence of its existence to "prove" that.



There's a reason religions operate on "faith." It's because they don't have evidence to show they're "right."
brother trucker
2014-05-29 11:35:02 UTC
Its completely possible to have undeniable proof for some religions. Its not possible to have undeniable evidence. People argue against established evidence all the time. Its what keeps the parameters of evidence honest.



Many years ago I tried looking at the atheist position logically and honestly. In the 1st paragraph of their position I realized that neither was possible.



To argue from that view, the non existence of an entity, would entail having to deny most of my university education and the requirements of logic for a start. Atheism is inherently dishonest and illogical so I will not be arguing from that point. Lets make that very clear. I will be arguing from an academic and holistic view.



If you are agnostic and haven't studied this I find your position hard to accept. I was agnostic for many years. This is why I chose the agnostic rout. Its why the term was created, to separate the logical from the illogical.



I stopped playing pretend many years ago. I am not interested in your game.



My stance is not pretended. It is based entirely on the 1st cause principle and circles around a better understanding of what the 1st cause is, His/its powers and responsibilities.



I will not deliberate on that as it is well known or am I just assuming that? I do presume a fundamental understanding of science in scientific questions.



I refuse to make excuses or lie for either science or religion. Both must live or die with the evidence they produce.



My religion is faith based. I have complete faith in the evidence and nothing else.



Its interesting that teddy bear up their posted the burden of proof but didn't read it. Legal proof is based on personal testimony. If we considered this evidence as proof obviously every religion that had a witness would be true no matter how ridiculous its aspirations.
etybcte
2014-05-29 11:05:45 UTC
No
anonymous
2014-06-04 20:51:08 UTC
YES THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND GOD NEVER LIES...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...