1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 20:491 edit
    I'm curious, do you atheists have support that your stance is more rational, other than your incessant repetition of the "fact"?

    I don't know about other theists, but I'm getting quite nauseated when I see your arrogance displayed so proudly and with no evidence to validate it. For example, this would be like calling myself the best chess champion in the world and then not ever playing a game of chess.

    Atheists spout this nonsense about atheism being 'rational' and then fail to prove it.

    It is NOT rational to believe something came from nothing. You can invent 'string theory', but then you do what Christians have been doing all along, presenting something to you which can't be proven.

    However, 'string theory' has NO evidence, whereas all of the evidence that we CURRENTLY have points to an Intelligent Designer. I would be well within my rights to call all of YOU irrational, because you believe in something for which there is no evidence.

    There is no objective proof for God. Ok. So? There's no objective proof for macroevolution, either, but that sure doesn't stop you gentlemen. I can't help but notice your gross display of double standards. Why do you believe macroevolution is true based on the 'evidence', but not Intelligent Design?

    Let's face the facts. I'm tired of you pulling stuff out of thin air and pretending like it's probably true when there's NO evidence. The Cambrian explosion CANNOT be explained in current day evolutionary theory. Just can't. Can and not. Can and subtraction sign. Opposite of able. Negative. No. Nope. (In Spanish--No). Maybe...wait, nope. The best Darwinists can offer is "The Cambrian explosion can be explained by conditions, that we have no proof existed, existing, and the transitionary fossils got 'swallowed up', and there you go, evolutionm is true because evolution is true."

    Am I the only one that catches the circular logic? Listen, Darwin himself said that if we didn't find transitionary fossils to explain the Cambrian explosion, his theory is FALSE. Not "in danger", but FALSE. As in the OPPOSITE of TRUTH. It's been almost a century and a half, and we actually have LESS transitionary fossils than since Darwin's time.

    But why waste time questioning evolution, right? You're after the truth--as long as the truth doesn't point to God, naturally--so you stand proudly on the bedrock of SCIENCE. That is, all science where the Creator is not necessary (naturally).

    Let's go to another inexplicable mystery. Origin of life. Now--just like the Cambrian explosion--all we have from the world's brightest minds are unfalisfiable theories. "Abiogenesis is correct because abiogenesis is correct." Face it, we've been at it for decades, boys, and--just like evolution--abiogenesis has LESS proof and is being more DISPROVED as we study it more.

    So tell me, you rational demi-gods you, where do you get off calling Christianity 'outdated'? You cling to theories that have been falsified. As in, opposite of truth.

    Let's get a summary of what atheists DO NOT know:

    1) Origin of universe
    2) Origin of life

    Let's get a summary of a THEORY the Bible offers:

    1) Origin of the universe
    2) Origin of life

    Let's get an example of what goes on in the atheist's mind when offered this theory:

    1) Intelligent Design can't be true because Intelligent Design can't be true.
    2) Intelligent Design isn't a theory because it introduces something new.

    I'd like you to especially note number 2. Is that not the definition of science? Proposing theories that can be tested as true or false?

    What would we expect to find if Intelligent Design were true?

    1) Something coming from nothing. The Big Bang states that the universe began. Science states everything which begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, so He could have been the cause, we should INVESTIGATE HIS CLAIM BASED ON HIS PREMISES, not ones we project onto Him (strawmen).

    2) The universe being fine-tuned. In other words, if you were hiking in the mountains, and came across rocks that spelled "Hello and welcome to this mountain, <insert name>." would you assume an earthquake had made the formation? Of course you wouldn't. Now, how would you explain it then? By an intelligent designer, of course! Such is LOGIC. Do you have PROOF this intelligent designer exists? Of course not. You're making a decision based on EVIDENCE (not bias).

    Let's check out the evidence for #2. These numbers represent the MAXIMUM deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life:

    Ratio of Electrons😛rotons 1:10^37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
    Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
    Mass of Universe 1:10^59
    Cosmological Constant 1:10^120

    Let me show you how much change in the Cosmological Constant would be required (either way) for us NOT to be here:

    One part IN

    1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

    Let me refer to a post I made in another thread:

    "[The cosmological costant is] remarkably well adjusted in our favor. From first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative, the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles."

    - Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg

    So to say "It appears fine-tuned, but it just had to be that way." is false, as the Nobel-winning physicist explains to us. You must then provide a reason WHY it is fine-tuned to such a ridiculous degree. If you do not, you are NOT being "logical" or "rational". You are being a simpleton who locks arms with other simpletons in the hope that if you SAY you're logical and rational enough, we will believe you.

    I would like to know, right now, WHY Intelligent Design is an implausible theory to you. Why would it be plausible on earth (with the rocks), but not on a larger scale? Well, if you were a scientist, it WOULD be plausible, nay, LOGICAL to say an Intelligent Designer designed the universe. When you dismiss the idea, you are being bias for no reason. None. You clearly have no scientific basis for dismissing it, so quit saying you do.

    So far, the evidence WE WOULD EXPECT to find to prove Intelligent Design is WHAT we find. Hmm. Seems like a theory that is being supported by evidence (unlike Darwinism). I, and other logical people, would agree that if it is supported by evidence, it is right and proper to embrace it. Any disagreements?

    3) If this Intelligent Designer designed the universe for the intelligent life within it (logical deduction), then we would expect that He makes sure that intelligent life is likely to live, otherwise His purpose would be foiled. In other words, it is MORE LOGICAL to say that He made the universe for the intelligent life and not that intelligent life was a byproduct. But do we find evidence?

    A. Our solar system is the ONLY one we've found with Jupiter (a gas giant) orbiting its star from such a vast distance away. Jupiter's placement makes it perfect for protecting Earth from fatal impacts from asteroids and comets ever 10,000 years.
    B. Our moon SHOULD NOT exist the way it does. The requirements for it to have occurred naturally are astronomical. First, an EXACTLY right sized object would have had to hit the early Earth (I guess Jupiter chose to let this one slide). Then, the material jettising from the Earth has to coalesce at EXACTLY the right distance away or it would never form a moon. Thirdly, without the moon, life on Earth WOULD NOT be possible.
    C. Earth is in THE most safest place in the universe. First, it is in a spiral galaxy (the only type of galaxy where life is PLAUSIBLE). Second, it is in between spiral arms and FAR away from the center of the galaxy. This means it is in very little danger of collision or other effects from being crowded. It ALSO means the Earth is at the BEST position to be able to study the universe. Why? Why is Earth in such a position? Couldn't life have sprung up in another location suitable for life but bad for observing the universe?

    Let me guess..."it just happened". Right, Mr. Scientist.

    D. Without its magnetic shield, atmosphere, green house affect, earth system cycle, and water, life wouldn't be possible. Anyone know why we have these things? Don't give me an answer like "comets hit the earth and gave it water". That is the process, that is not the cause. Why, exactly, did all of these "coincidences" occur? That isn't science. It screams a Designer. Just like the rock formation would.

    Now that we've pointed out that atheism has LITTLE to do with logic, let's get to why people are atheists. You don't like God. You find Him distasteful. Ok, fair enough. At least we're not hiding behind elementary statements like "There's no evidence He exists." anymore. God is a supreme mind. That's what He is. He's not a physical old man sitting on a throne. He is
  2. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 20:59
    That's what He is. He's not a physical old man sitting on a throne. He is a mind. Tell me, do the physical interactions between molecules affect your thought process? Of course not. Our mind is not the same as our brain. If someone shocked our brain to move a body part, we could fight that command with our mind. You can't fight your brain with your brain. So is the mind composed of matter that has restrictions? Of course not. So why, pray tell, do you apply the restrictions to a Supreme Mind (God)? His Mind had abilities ours don't. He can create things merely through thoughts. Does that invalidate Him? Of course not, or all new theories would be invalidated. We must look at the evidence to decide the veracity of the theory, not use the theory to decide the veracity of the evidence.

    But to put atheist and rational in the same sentence is a falsehood. If you do not use evidence as your basis for conclusions, you are the DEFINITION of irrational.

    Or would some of you have said an earthquake had formed the rocks that way?
    😀
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 21:03
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I'm curious, do you atheists have support that your stance is more rational, other than your incessant repetition of the "fact"?

    I don't know about other theists, but I'm getting quite nauseated when I see your arrogance displayed so proudly and with no evidence to validate it. For example, this would be like calling myself the best chess champion ...[text shortened]... a supreme mind. That's what He is. He's not a physical old man sitting on a throne. He is
    Actually science doesn't say everything which began to exist had to have a cause. Such a principle is untestable, and is thereby unscientific. The claim that nothing can begin to exist ex nihilo is a metaphysica claim.
  4. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 21:05
    You aren't asserting that atheists are, as a group, committed to the Big Bang hypothesis and to String Theory, are you? 'Cause if you are saying that then you are mistaken.
  5. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 21:09
    Originally posted by bbarr
    You aren't asserting that atheists are, as a group, committed to the Big Bang hypothesis and to String Theory, are you? 'Cause if you are saying that then you are mistaken.
    Then make your position clear, bbarr. That way we can debate, rather than me falsifying all possibilities and you saying "Nope, I believe something else, so I'm still right."
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 21:10
    A former colleague of mine, who is a philosopher and a theist (now a professor at a Christian university here in Seattle), has a great article on the 'Fine Tuning Argument' you may want to read. Here is the abstract and link to the article:

    Proponents of fine-tuning arguments attempt to infer the existence of God from the presumably improbable fact that the universe is able to support life. Life would not be possible if any of approximately two-dozen fundamental laws and properties of the universe had been even slightly different; this, according to the argument, shows the existence of a creator who deliberately created the universe for the purpose of supporting life. In this essay, I consider the Confirmatory Version of the argument, which relies on the following principle of confirmation theory: if an observation O is more likely to occur under hypothesis H1 than under hypothesis H2, then O supports accepting H1 over H2. In "Prior Probabilities and Confirmation Theory: A Problem with the Fine-Tuning Argument" International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 51, no. 4 (June 2002), 175-194, I argue that the application of this principle under conditions similar to those
    forming the context of the Confirmatory Version is vulnerable to
    straightforward counterexamples and attempt to explain the proper
    application conditions for this principle.

    The article can be downloaded free of charge at:

    http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0020-7047/contents

    You should read it, it is damn good.
  7. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 21:16
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Then make your position clear, bbarr. That way we can debate, rather than me falsifying all possibilities and you saying "Nope, I believe something else, so I'm still right."
    My position is that one ought not believe somthing without good evidence in its favor. Since there is no good evidence either for the claim that the universe came into existence or for the claim that the universe has always been, I believe the following:

    It is either the case that the universe came into existence or it has always been.

    You see, not everybody has to have a position on every question, and sometimes it is positively irrational to have beliefs on a particular question. Some questions just don't have anything that weighs in favor of one answer over another. In such cases, one ought to remain agnostic about the question. Similar comments apply to String Theory. There is no good evidence for it, but there are very elegant mathematical models (albeit with pretty heavy metaphysical commitments). So, why not remain agnostic about String Theory?

    The problem you seem to be making, and you seem to make it consistently, is equating atheism with scientism. You should not do this, as it misrepresents the position of very many atheists.

  8. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 21:18
    Originally posted by bbarr
    My position is that one ought not believe somthing without good evidence in its favor. Since there is no good evidence either for the claim that the universe came into existence or for the claim that the universe has always been, I believe the following:

    [b]It is either the case that the universe came into existence or it has always been.


    You see, n ...[text shortened]... scientism. You should not do this, as it misrepresents the position of very many atheists.

    [/b]
    What is your basis for doubting the veracity of the Big Bang event? Do you have any evidence against it? If not, you are simply remaining agnostic in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.
  9. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    04 Apr '05 21:19
    Darfius, I don't have the time nor inclination to go through your pseudo-science to see what drivel you've gleaned from creationist sources, but I will tackle your overiding presumption. I have said it before and I will say it again:

    Atheism is not Darwinism.

    It does not make assumptions about the origin of the universe.

    It does not make assumptions about the Theory of Evolution.

    It is only a denial of the existence of god.

    Why do you insist, time after time after time, on refusing to take this on board. No matter how many times you are presented with this, you blur the line between Atheism and every form of science or other belief which challenges your views. It's like me confusing Catholisism with 7th day Adventists or Born Agains, incorrect, insulting and futile in the realms of debate. I honestly cannot comprehend why you don't understand. So many people here have pointed it out so many times and you just will not listen. People have many beliefs which may or may not be to do with faith or spirituality. Atheists have many beliefs which should not be confused with Atheism, but which may be compatible with Atheism. This does not mean that Atheism and these beliefs are the same thing.
  10. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 21:32
    Originally posted by Darfius
    What is your basis for doubting the veracity of the Big Bang event? Do you have any evidence against it? If not, you are simply remaining agnostic in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.
    Darfius, how many times do I have to make this point?

    1) There is good evidence that a big explosion occurred.

    2) There is no evidence that this explosion brought the universe into existence.

    Do you see the difference? I am saying that an atheist ought to remain agnostic about the question of how the universe came into existence. I am not saying that an atheist ought to remain agnostic about the occurrence of an explosion billions of years ago.
  11. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 21:50
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Darfius, how many times do I have to make this point?

    1) There is good evidence that a big explosion occurred.

    2) There is no evidence that this explosion brought the universe into existence.

    Do you see the difference? I am saying that an atheist ought to remain agnostic about the question of how the universe came into existence. I am not saying ...[text shortened]... an atheist ought to remain agnostic about the occurrence of an explosion billions of years ago.
    I call BS.

    You're basically disagreeing with all scientists in the world that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe.

    In other words, you are right because you are right. It is impossible to debate with someone not interested in evidence.

    We can let the reader assume that you're more intelligent or know something all scientists (theist, atheist and agnostic alike) don't know OR we can assume you're going "la la la la" in spite of the evidence you desire being presented to you.
  12. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 22:00
    Darfius, I don't have the time nor inclination to go through your pseudo-science to see what drivel you've gleaned from creationist sources, but I will tackle your overiding presumption. I have said it before and I will say it again:

    Yes, I wouldn't have the inclination to debate if I didn't have answers either. By the way, why do you say "creationist" sources? As if what I'm saying aren't facts? As usual with atheists, you attack the person rather than the argument, because you have no actual argument.

    Atheism is not Darwinism.

    Agreed. Darwinism is simply how an atheist can approach being logical. You choose not to be called logical. That's a personal choice of yours.

    It does not make assumptions about the origin of the universe.

    Neither does intelligent design. It is a theory, and it is backed up by evidence. If you have no evidence to the contrary, you are denying it for personal reasons, rather than logical reasons.

    It does not make assumptions about the Theory of Evolution.

    Agreed. Most atheists do think about "where did I come from", however, and cling to Darwinism rather than God. They don't say "I don't know, but it sure ain't God." That is something a child would do.

    It is only a denial of the existence of god.

    Agreed, in spite of evidence to the contrary. I deny you existed 5 minutes ago. I would need proof you did. Proof I can touch, please.

    Why do you insist, time after time after time, on refusing to take this on board. No matter how many times you are presented with this, you blur the line between Atheism and every form of science or other belief which challenges your views. It's like me confusing Catholisism with 7th day Adventists or Born Agains, incorrect, insulting and futile in the realms of debate.

    It's nothing like that at all. All theists take the same stance. God exists and then offer evidence. They don't just say "God exists" like "pink unicorns flying in space exists". Most atheists realize they need to offer a REASON God doesn't exist. You, however, seem to feel you can simply negate whatever people say because you are Supreme Ruler of All Truths. Us mere mortals need evidence.

    I honestly cannot comprehend why you don't understand. So many people here have pointed it out so many times and you just will not listen. People have many beliefs which may or may not be to do with faith or spirituality. Atheists have many beliefs which should not be confused with Atheism, but which may be compatible with Atheism. This does not mean that Atheism and these beliefs are the same thing.

    Here it turned into gibberish. And I admit, I don't understand gibberish. You're saying "God doesn't exist." and NOT BACKING IT UP. For instance, if I say you didn't exist 5 minutes ago, you could prove me wrong by supplying EVIDENCE. But if I made the claim, and expected to be listened to or deemed rational and intelligent, I would have to give evidence to support my claim. You lacking proof you existed 5 minutes ago does not make me right. It's a logical inference that you did.
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 22:031 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I call BS.

    You're basically disagreeing with all scientists in the world that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe.

    In other words, you are right because you are right. It is impossible to debate with someone not interested in ...[text shortened]... a la" in spite of the evidence you desire being presented to you.
    Take a couple classes, Darfius, 'cause you don't know what you are talking about.

    This is from NASA:

    "Big Bang Cosmology

    The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky."

    Notice that these scientists (maybe they're crazy rogue scientists!) are claiming that there was already something in existence at the time of the Big Bang, hence the universe did not originate with the Big Bang.

    This is from UCLA

    "What came before the Big Bang?

    The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." "

    Oh yeah, that bolded quote at the end is from Wittgenstein, in case you were wondering.


  14. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    04 Apr '05 22:14
    Take a couple classes, Darfius, 'cause you don't know what you are talking about.

    Attacking the person again. Tsk tsk.

    "Big Bang Cosmology

    The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky."

    Notice that these scientists (maybe they're crazy rogue scientists!) are claiming that there was already something in existence at the time of the Big Bang, hence the universe did not originate with the Big Bang.


    Is it me or does it not say "origin of the universe"? The singularity can't be proven to have existed forever. At all. You take it on faith. You're a religious man, it seems.

    "What came before the Big Bang?

    The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

    Oh yeah, that bolded quote at the end is from Wittgenstein, in case you were wondering.


    And I conclude that that is BS. Because you can't prove God does not exist, yet you assert that He does not. That is what atheists are claiming. That God does not exist. Don't come back with "lack of belief". That is the same as denying He exists. You have no evidence for that. Theists have evidence He does. You are being irrational by not accepting the best theory.


  15. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    04 Apr '05 22:382 edits
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Take a couple classes, Darfius, 'cause you don't know what you are talking about.

    Attacking the person again. Tsk tsk.

    "Big Bang Cosmology

    The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution You are being irrational by not accepting the best theory.


    LOL! You're priceless.

    You started with this claim regarding atheists:

    It is NOT rational to believe something came from nothing.

    My claim was that atheists are not committed to this claim. I said we should remain agnostic as to how the universe came into existence. Specifically, we do not need to maintain that the universe came into existence ex nihilo.

    Your response was the following:

    What is your basis for doubting the veracity of the Big Bang event?

    So, once more, I explained to you that although there is evidence for an explosion, there is no evidence that the universe came into existence by virtue of this explosion. That is, there is no reason to think that the Big Bang marked a coming into existence, ex nihilo, of the universe.

    Next you claimed the following:

    You're basically disagreeing with all scientists in the world that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe.

    So, I show you two sources that took about 10 seconds to find, one from NASA, the other from UCLA, neither of which claim that the universe came into existence, ex nihilo, by virtue of the Big Bang. I'll repeat the relevant parts:

    It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across

    So tell me Darfius, how could it be that the universe came into existence, ex nihilo, when there was something there before the Big Bang?

    LOL, sorry, it is just funny. Look, if you are getting confused, go and reread your first claim. I'll repost it right here:

    It is NOT rational to believe something came from nothing.

    So, you know, I thought we were talking about something coming from nothing, not something coming from something a few millimeters apart. Nothing, after all, is not something.

    But here's the UCLA post again:

    s I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

    Which is just about as explicit an instance of agreement with my position that I could for coming from a scientist. Why, he even quotes a philosopher!

    So, to recap:

    You claimed atheists say the universe came from nothing.

    This is false, many of us do not say this.

    You said that remaining agnostic was flying in the face of the available evidence.

    This was also false. There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing (remember that that is what at issue here).

    Then you claimed that the scientists disagreed with my position.

    This is was also false (a hat trick for Darfius!).

    NASA claims there was something in existence that gave rise to the universe. UCLA remains agnostic on the issue, just as I suggest.

    So, now you change the subject (which is understandable), claiming that even though I can't prove that God does not exist, I assert that he does not exist.

    I think the Problem of Evil provides an excellent reason for thinking that God does not exist, and that the paucity of evidence for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being weighs in favor of the null hypothesis. This is not proof, if you take proof to require certainty, but it is good evidence. Although, if you think that proof requires certainty, then you don't have proof that you have hands, or that you are not currently dreaming, or that you are in some Matrix like scenario. Hence, if proof requires certainty than we don't have proof of anything at all. But why on earth should we care about proof then? I am fine with having good evidence against the claim that God exists.



Back to Top