Experts and users discuss god, religion: Science Has Been Proven, God Hasn’t
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.





Science Has Been Proven, God Hasn’t
- From American Atheists
By American Atheists - An Educational Organization for Atheists
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False premise
Your premise for this argument has not even been proved. You presuppose the fact that God transcends natural laws when many religions believe that God rules by natural laws that transcend Him. This is your fundamental failure in all the arguments provided, which means, in essence, all of your arguments fail.
- jdefriez August 6, 2008 2:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again logic is the bane of theists
jdefriez, your premise that " many religions believe that God rules by natural laws that transcend Him," reflects the fact that your religion, where He makes those laws, reflects in turn your petitio that He does overcome them. So He cannot overrule the law of the coservation of mass-energy that reflects eternal Existence.
- skeptic griggsy October 14, 2008 4:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
good grief charlie brown
I apologize, this is not much of a response to your work. I am tired. I should not really be writing now...but I just want to say a couple of things...the belief in God or a god or gods is quaint. There is now extensive neuroscientific "evidence" for "god on the brain" which neither proves nor disproves anything much...but it is interesting to see how the brain functions. I take all human knowledge to be human constructions (we can only see what humans can see; we can only hear what humans can hear etc etc). We can only think or imagine what humans can think or imagine. Anything beyond the scope of our brains is by definition unknowable. If there was a god we could not possibly know it. In the same sense that no human being can possibly know everything that is going on in the universe. God, is apparently, bigger than the universe, after all he, she or it made the universe, so he she or it must be bigger (in some sense) and therefore as a mere humanoid I cannot know him her or it. And it would not make a blind bit of difference even if he she or it did exist...the world is just the same...Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the US military all still exist, they are all still torturing and killing each other. All the people doing compassionate loving helpful things in the world are also still there. If god is there or if god is not there...there is no difference. Perhaps, the new US President will help bring some peace into this world, I certainly hope so, but even he cannot bring a non-existent god into existence.
- Betty
January 31, 2009 2:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm dizzy
"This is your fundamental failure in all the arguments provided, which means, in essence, all of your arguments fail"
LOL. Wow. Did anyone else take a second read at that?
- reb412 August 30, 2008 11:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ugh.
As a scientist and skeptic of religion, I am offended by this inane post. Where to start?
"everything we know about science would have to be wrong"
First, the areas of science and the scientific method that would be affected by a revelation depend entirely on the specific powers of the g(G)od in question.
Second, most of what we currently "know" as scientists is wrong to some degree. Science is a path to understanding, but don't get on a high horse about how great we are. We are just getting started.
"Absent proof that matter and Energy can be created, there is no reason to doubt science in favor of a wish"
We know that matter and energy can interconvert. A lot of miracles could happen that way. As pointed out by jdefriez, it is a false premise to say that god is equivalent to the creation of matter and energy.
I believe you are refuting a specific God, perhaps the God required to accomplish the literal word of the bible. Even with such an easy target you have mishandled the argument and discredited your own side with your fallacious appeals to authority. You can't even preach to the converted.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 4:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
natural law/science/God
Granted that science never 'proves' theories, it merely rejects theories which have been falsified, but that's kind of a minor clarification.
You have to admit that the above comment (while poorly constructed) does have a point insofar as the existence of an omnipotent being would mean that the so-called immutable laws of physics would be more like traditions of physics given that they could be 'over-ruled' at will. If the object of science is to whittle away false theories in order to leave behind the theories which can't be falsified, then the existence of an omniscient being would defeat that purpose (since it could falsify any theory).
- ockraz
January 29, 2009 11:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
interesting take
I applaud your honesty. Science is not what is or isn't, but instead what might or might not be. Science explanation does not have to be true to be useful, just consistent with most of the evidence. How much of science has been disapproved with new technologies. I mean look how much of Darwin has been disputed as inaccurate, thanks to molecular Biology. Follow the evidence, make a decision. I would encourage you as a seemingly logical scientist to study more on Robert Collins Fine Tuning, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells (molecular Biology), and David Berlinski. Good life to you
- rekiser
August 20, 2009 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A non-argument
"We want there to be a god, but in order for a god to be real, everything we know about science would have to be wrong."
This is simply a restatement of the previous argument, which is nothing more than an unsupported assertion. There is no reason to suppose that science would have to be dropped if God is real. Indeed, modern science exists precisely because early scientists believed in God. They believed that the world, and by extension the universe, was rational, ordered and knowable precisely because God created it that way.
One may well reject the idea of God but the (non) argument above does not provide support for doing so.
- goodwyne
October 11, 2008 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ever that bane!
That is no unsupported assertion, goodwyne, as the evidence supports it: were matters different that the laws work in helter-skelter manner, then one might posit God as Victor Stenger notes in " Has Science found God" and "God: the failed Hypothesis." One engages in a petitio in finding God to sustain Existence.
It was not necessary that those scientists thought Him making the "Comprehensible Universe [ Stenger]."
- skeptic griggsy October 14, 2008 4:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Still a non-argument
What you've done is set up a straw man and knocked him down. You basically assert, with no support, that if there is a God, "laws would work in a helter skelter manner. There simply is no rational support for such an assertion. Therefore, you're presented nothing but an assertion, certainly not an argument. I stand by my statement.
- goodwyne
October 14, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
more logicide!
goodwyne,nay, we have no reason to doubt that the laws work, so one would have to demonstrate evidence that some occult force could overcome them- no straw man at all. If one could, then they were in a helter- skelter manner. One would have to show the impossible that the law of conservation did not hold before the Big Bang, which by the way depends on that law as portraying quantum energy before the Bang, whence it came.
The weight of evidence from experience is that natural laws and causes and explanations are the sufficient reason.To posit God is the unimformative and fatuous , God did it!
pbeaird might enlighten you further.
- skeptic griggsy October 15, 2008 4:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Weight?
The weight of evidence since the big bang has nothing to say about conditions before the big bang. What laws governed are the subject of mere speculation. There simply is no experience and no empirical evidence from which to draw conclusions.
As for laws as we know them, no one has claimed that we should doubt them. Certainly the possibility of a God does not preclude them fron functioning just as we expect them to.
We could go back and forth with a "yes you are" - "no I'm not" conversation but that serves no purpose. Baring anything that actually supports the position that a God would invalidate all physical laws, I don't think there's much more to discuss.
- goodwyne
October 15, 2008 5:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
founded on bad metaphysics
You do have to admit, though that if God existed, he would undermine the assumptions of science: namely that there are natural laws which we can try to approximate. God's existence would preclude the possibility of immutable natural law.
- ockraz
January 29, 2009 11:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible proves it.
One thing the Bible does is validate itself over and over. Not too long ago, scientist looking at the soil underneath the amazon were amazed when they discovered a sudden shift in the soil and the only explanation they had was that the earth had to come to a complete stop for that shift to happen. They did their dating and it dated back to when God stopped the sun in the book of joshua. Weird. Also, scientist used Hezekiahs tunnel as proof that God didn't exist, until they found it.
- inupiaqswagger
November 12, 2008 12:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, it is weird...
Aren't you creating trouble for yourself, inupiaqswagger? If "Joshua" is correct, then the other books of the Old Testament are also correct, and the Earth is 6,000 years old. The way scientists would date soil is by the age of organic matter in it by means of carbon-14 dating, and for this dating to correspond with the biblical chronology it would have to be reliable. Which would mean that other dates given by C14 dating would also be correct including the ones of 40,000 years (which is at least 6 times the biblical age of the Earth). I don't know how reliable the science is (I did a Google search, and the only links were back to your comment). I'd be interested if you could provide a link to the report.
Hezekiah's tunnel was rediscovered in 1838. So there wouldn't have been many scientists (not even Darwin) who would have been able to use its non-existence as evidence of the falsity of the bible. It would hardly be surprising that Jerusalem would have had a secure source of water, in case of a siege, and the bible mentioning a real structure hardly makes the rest of the book correct (you might as well argue that since "Harry Potter" mentions King's Cross Station, then the books must be true, because the station also exists; come to think of it, I have been to King's Cross and seen a wall between platforms 9 and 10 marked platform 9 3/4, with a trolley embedded in the wall-so they must be true!).
- bachfiend
January 30, 2009 4:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fwhat?
"Science has been proven, God hasn't." It doesn't take a scientist to know that the first rule to scientific theory is that nothing can be proven. Nothing. Not even that the world is round (and it's not. It's shaped like a pear.) All scientists can do is come up with massive amounts of evidence over time to support their theories. Which is what Christians, Jews, and Muslims try to do all over the world every day.
"You essentially say “he did it with magic” – which also doesn’t exist, so there we are again."
Okay...What if there is a god? (I know, I know you're an atheist, bear with me here.) Let's assume God's the all powerful type and he came up with *gasp!* the laws of the universe (Scientific laws included)? Would it be so ridiculous for any believer to suppose that he works through the scientific manner which he himself created? In which case, science doesn't disprove the idea of God, it actually supports it.
"Is there a god? I’m afraid not. Too bad." Just fyi, about two thirds of the human population can be documented and classified as a certain type of believer in God. So for you to attempt to crush their insights and beliefs in such a trite way without any evidence to back up your claim not only makes you look insensitive, but says nothing for your credibility. And you are speaking on behalf of an organization, man! So you're making them look bad too. Nice.
- Livvy
February 5, 2009 4:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Forgetting something?
You seem to be forgetting that current evolutionary theory also breaks the laws of physics. It requires life to spontaneously arise from non-life, which, according to science is impossible. It would make more sense to have a being who could break the laws of physics willy nilly (though that is not what I, nor many others, believe is the case) than it would to have the laws of physics randomly break themselves.
- richardsonkr
February 9, 2009 7:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
that was a waste of anyone's reading ability
of course they would say that science has been proven. whoever wrote this had to have been full of a lot of hubris in order to publish it. science isnt PROVEN. for the love of any superior being, were NEVER going to have all the answers. don't use the term science and proven in the same fragment. end of story.
- fillintheblank
March 1, 2009 4:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Basis of Science
What is the basis of scientific "proof" ? Experiments that produce the same results tested by various people right? If you give religion the same benefit of proving itself by this way then there are millions upon millions of people who experience god and therefore have proven his existence . Now many people experience him in a different way but we have to, I think, chalk it up a lot to culture and ideas about what he is. Some people are actually incapable of experiencing god because they lack the prerequisites usually sucked out of them by a lifetime of incredulity. Or in some cases never there in the first place. I'd like to give an example. My mathematics professor was once asked by a colleague how he could believe in god and still be such a logical person. His reply was more or less along these lines, "I'd explain it to you but you couldn't understand in the time we have." "Why not?" "Could we pull someone off the street and explain to them complex number theory until they understood it as well as we do? Of course not, they need a basis to start from." Besides, science lives off of faith I wouldn't start to decry it. Has anyone seen a quark? What is a quark made of? There's my two cents.
- ecuadmail
April 9, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science.
You have made an elementary statement in, " Science has been proven."
That statement is similar to the following, " The Sun has been proven."
The question is, what about the sun is proven?
upon your statement i ask the following:
1) Which science ? - there are many types of study.
2) Which has been proven? - there are many differing ideas on a range of topics.
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 2:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Against the man
I have read the arguments presented by American Atheists, and I feel the urge to say: they do a disservice to Atheists. None of their statements are real arguments.
Their first argument, "the definition of God" resolves in the words “Does a being live today that possesses (or once possessed) the ability to create the universe?” The answer is clear – absolutely not." But that is not a resolution. There is no evidence or logic brought to the argument, making it not an argument at all.
Their second argument, "matter cannot be destroyed - or created" is blatantly false. It is painfully clear there are no physicists among the American Atheist staff.
Their third argument, "Wishing doesn't make it true" is just a phrase. It would be like a Christian shouting "Jesus is Lord!" And having a whole organization proclaim that that is a decent argument.
And finally, " science has been proven, God hasn't"? Well that's just silly. Just because you haven't proven something doesn't make it non-existent, especially because nothing in science can be proven.
These arguments are offensive...to atheists
- Cheerikiara
May 14, 2009 12:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In the beginning.
Science teaches that in the beginning the Unified Force, an infinite, unknowable force, split into the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism, creating the universe. An infinite, unknowable force creates the universe. Sound familiar?
- mike1948
August 4, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well
that's not quite accurate. First of all, the unified force isn't really a thing. You might be talking about a Unified field, which is a description of how strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity interact and are similar. That would give us the ability to say for certain how everything is going to move, but doesn't really give us much in the way of how the universe was created.
And it's not true to say that we cannot know what that unified force is, but that we don't currently know. That's why we're looking.
- quantummechanik
August 4, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LAUGHABLE LOGIC
Much of the understanding of scientific logic here is incorrect. The very laws of physics are based on theory. We can measure but based on presuppositions. For example: we know that gravity existence, but we presuppose the theory's of how gravity came into being. Thus Gravity is still a theory. Through Physics we have discovered that the earth is fine tuned for life to exist. Mathematically life elsewhere is improbable There are very few facts of science much more theories. Perhaps there needs to be studying more on these aspects and let the evidence lead you to a conclusion rather than searching for a conclusion to meet your belieifs. There is good research by Michael Behe "irreducible complexity", and the Robin Collins "Fine tuning." If there is going to be a debate there needs to be a better knowledge of scientific exploration and theory. Some scientist to read- Michael Ruse ( evolution ), David Berlinski , Rick Larson, Gregory a. Boyd, Johnathan Wells
- rekiser
August 20, 2009 9:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
irreducible
Yet Behe's irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated and has no significant support in the Scientific community. Robin Collins fine tuning is a philosophical argument, not a Scientific one.
Science may not have all the answers, but so far it has done a much better job of describing the world around us then religion ever has.
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 12:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again Laughable logic
I find it interesting your weak way of discrediting a reputable scientist, but say noting of Ruse who has said himself that Behe is a reputable scientist. They have even contributed in a book together called "Debating Design." I suppose because you say it that it is true, then it is true. Are you familiar with Lenin, " “A lie told often enough becomes truth. You obviously do not know much about the scientific community, nor the scientist and their work. Perhaps if you have read Behe instead of goggling weak arguments you would know that he has demonstrated such support, and well known reputable arguments. Behe has demonstrated several examples in micro-biology including the flagellum, and Bacillus subtilis. Your best bet would to pick a topic and debate it, instead of using a strawman attack on a scientist. As for Collins, you obviously have not read his material either. Collins arguments are not philosophical they are mathematical and measurable. For example just one parameter: if gravity were stronger by only one part in a trillion trillion trillion the universe would have collapsed back on itself. My advice is to not argue vaguely, but to use logical cogent reason free from ideology and fallacious reasoning. Know the facts, submit the facts, interpret the data, and remember. "Science doesn't provide us with truth. The practice of scientific investigation involves tools that help us explain how the physical world might work. The explanation doesn't have to be true to be useful, just consistent with most of the evidence." (Spencer) Thank you for you time I hope you put more thought into your next argument.
Other scientist to read... Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay W Richards
- rekiser
September 6, 2009 9:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Debating Design
"I find it interesting your weak way of discrediting a reputable scientist, but say noting of Ruse who has said himself that Behe is a reputable scientist."
Yet Michale Ruse himself is a philosopher, not a Scientist. You also give no context for that statement.
"I suppose because you say it that it is true, then it is true."
No, I say it 'is true' because the evidence strongly suggests that it is true.
I find it rather interesting that you would name "Debating Design" then go on to talk about the flagellum... when one of the essays in Debating Design demonstrates how that flagellum is 'irreducibly complex'.
"Collins arguments are not philosophical they are mathematical and measurable. For example just one parameter: if gravity were stronger by only one part in a trillion trillion trillion the universe would have collapsed back on itself."
Yes, but also not very accurate. We do not know how variable gravity can be, it may be that there are only a few possible values for gravity to have. Saying that because we exist gravity must have this value is not a reasonable statement... rather we exist because gravity has that value.
"Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay W Richards"
I have never been a supporter of the "Rare Earth Hypothesis"
- MrBook
September 7, 2009 8:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ahh Insight on one liners
"No, I say it 'is true' because the evidence strongly suggests that it is true."
What evidence?
"I find it rather interesting that you would name "Debating Design" then go on to talk about the flagellum... when one of the essays in Debating Design demonstrates how that flagellum is 'irreducibly complex'."
Whats your point?
"Yes, but also not very accurate. We do not know how variable gravity can be, it may be that there are only a few possible values for gravity to have. Saying that because we exist gravity must have this value is not a reasonable statement... rather we exist because gravity has that value."
Yes, fantastic so we agree. Gravity is only one of the many examples. And your argument on gravitation is what Collins is saying. Gravity has its exact value, Therefore we exist. Its a measurable parameter.
"I have never been a supporter of the "Rare Earth Hypothesis"
Supporter or not, the evidence is there.
and finally a challenge to you. Tell me what of life's origins? Where and how did life com about?
- rekiser
September 10, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence
"What evidence?"
In broad terms there is the fossil record, genetic analysis of modern species, the result of biological experimentation, the emergence of new species in environments that have only existed for a short period of time.
"Whats your point?"
the flagellum has been shown to be 'reducibility complex' and thus does not serve as an example of 'irreducible complexity' .
"Yes, fantastic so we agree. Gravity is only one of the many examples. And your argument on gravitation is what Collins is saying. Gravity has its exact value, Therefore we exist. Its a measurable parameter."
That does not mean that gravity was set at that value by a designer... We exist because gravity has that value, gravity does not have that value so that we can exist.
"Supporter or not, the evidence is there. "
Our observations are far to limited to make that assumption, but given the number of planets observed so far it seems quite likely that most stars have planets, and thus it seems quite likely that there would be other planets capable of supporting life (assuming that life needs a narrow set of parameters to survive).
"and finally a challenge to you. Tell me what of life's origins? Where and how did life com about?"
There are still a good number of theories out there being researched... but a 'rough' description would be as follows.
The early oceans of the world were rich in a wide variety of complex chemicals , the byproduct of chemical reactions that had started when the earth was still a cloud of interstellar dust. Among these chemicals were replicator molecules, complex organics that react with the chemicals around them to form other replicator molecules. This replication was not perfect, and so the replicators changed... some changes led to improved replication (faster or more accurate) and thus those replicator molecules became the dominant form. Over time these replicators reacted with other environmental elements such as the lipids that form cell walls to form the earliest cells.
- MrBook
September 10, 2009 10:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A God fearing person
Saying that science disproves god is an asinine statement. What has science proven that the earth revolves around the sun and that all living things are made of atoms and such. religion has never claimed to have the answers of why things are the way they are. Holy scriptures are written by man and they transform it as they see fit. But this is not definite proof that there is no god. science can only prove what is seen. There are many things going on in the universe that are unseen look at black holes we know they are there but we can only speculate on how they function. As far as science has gone it is really only within the scope of our corner of our galaxy. Which is a tiny fraction of the whole universe. We see things on such a small scale that most of the things we have proven may not conform to the rest of the universe. We don't even know what is at the very bottom of our own oceans how can we claim that we know if there is a divine being or not. There is no proof on either side just because there is a god does not disprove science and vice-versa. As speculated(and i mean a theory that is currently trying to be proven) the universe is moving apart. Scientist have known this for a long time the universe is expanding right now but they assumed that one day that the universe would collapse in on itself. Scientists now believe that the universe is expanding and will continuing expanding for eternity since gravity loses its strength the farther objects get from each other(duh). So this puts a big question on the big bang theory. Scientists believed that the mass that existed before the big bang was from the universe before and that it collapsed in on itself. And since our universe seems doomed to expand forever it seems that this first explanation will not fit the mold. So what was before that mass that the big bang strewn out. We may never know. But saying that there is a scientific explanation and only a scientific explanation. Is like saying that since there is life on earth that it came from a meteor( i'm not sure this is a good analogy but i couldn't think of a better one). We know so little about the world around us that it is stupid to say that on the little information we have that there is definite proof that god doesn't exist
- ruralamerican
September 5, 2009 12:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
little information
“Saying that science disproves god is an asinine statement. What has science proven that the earth revolves around the sun and that all living things are made of atoms and such. religion has never claimed to have the answers of why things are the way they are.”
Explaining why things are is a huge part of religion. The entire first book of the Bible is devoted to explaining why things are the way they are on earth.
“Holy scriptures are written by man and they transform it as they see fit. But this is not definite proof that there is no god. science can only prove what is seen.”
The burden of proof is on those who believe in God(s)… not on those who do not believe.
If I tell you that there are magic unicorns running around do you accept that statement just because you cannot disprove it?
“There are many things going on in the universe that are unseen look at black holes we know they are there but we can only speculate on how they function.”
We have some very strong math that describes black holes.
“As far as science has gone it is really only within the scope of our corner of our galaxy. Which is a tiny fraction of the whole universe.”
Science can observe the entire observable universe… and in doing so we see that the laws are consistent. We can observe the chemical composition of distant stars, and even observe the motion of planets as they orbit other stars.
“We see things on such a small scale that most of the things we have proven may not conform to the rest of the universe.”
As stated above… what we observe is consistent, the laws we see here on earth are the same laws found in the Andromeda galaxy and beyond.
“We don't even know what is at the very bottom of our own oceans how can we claim that we know if there is a divine being or not.”
Yes, but that same logic says we cannot claim that there are no elves.
“There is no proof on either side just because there is a god does not disprove science and vice-versa.”
Science is just a process, not really something that can be proven or disproved. However the evidence of it’s accuracy is right in front of you. The computer that you are using to read this was built and operates on Scientific principals.
“As speculated(and i mean a theory that is currently trying to be proven) the universe is moving apart. Scientist have known this for a long time the universe is expanding right now but they assumed that one day that the universe would collapse in on itself. “
Actually that was never the consensus. The collapsing universe was only one of three considered outcomes (the other two being equilibrium and infinite linear expansion).
“Scientists now believe that the universe is expanding and will continuing expanding for eternity since gravity loses its strength the farther objects get from each other(duh).”
The current theory is that the rate of expansion is increasing.
“So this puts a big question on the big bang theory. Scientists believed that the mass that existed before the big bang was from the universe before and that it collapsed in on itself.”
The ‘cyclical universe’ hypothesis never moved beyond it’s preliminary stages… and was not universally accepted (though it was seen as a possibility).
“But saying that there is a scientific explanation and only a scientific explanation. Is like saying that since there is life on earth that it came from a meteor( i'm not sure this is a good analogy but i couldn't think of a better one).”
Do you have another explanation, one that has some physical evidence to back it up? Or do you have evidence that falsifies current theories but supports your own.
“We know so little about the world around us that it is stupid to say that on the little information we have that there is definite proof that god doesn't exist”
As I stated above… using that logic I could claim that elves existed then demand that you prove they don’t.
- MrBook
September 11, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no god
even those who say they believe it god do not believe they are just frightened to what will happen to them when they die.
I do not thing a poll is correct.They have not asked everyone.
- beinghuman
September 27, 2009 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Satanists prove Gd exists! Atheists left with deer in headlight look
I would recommend a controversial book titled, PREPARE FOR WAR, by Rebecca Brown MD. I believe she effectively proves the existence of evil and consequently the existence of Gd. While atheism is not of itself a sin leadng to death it is a porthole to evil and a wise person would not go there! Here is a review of her book:
This book is a sequel to the much talked about book, HE CAME TO SET THE CAPTIVES FREE, by physician Rebecca Brown. Some would call her a extreme right wing religious fanatic others downright crazy but those who have encountered the rituals and practices of satanists and those who have experienced demonic and satanic activity within the witchcraft or satanic underground would beg to differ with those evaluations.
Many more people than you would think have dabbled and even practiced witchcraft and even lesser evils, be it for pleasure or for serious worship and have found this underworld to be wicked and criminal in more ways than one and have little resource as to how to get out of such a mind-controling anti-religious group/groups and Dr. Brown attempts to show people what that world does to innocent victims and how it operates and how unknowing youth are falling into its spiritual warfare and are finding it to be a battle they dont know how to win or even begin to fight against. Dr. Brown shows those individuals that they can leave satan worship and they can only do that by the blood of Jesus and the grace of Gd. She effectively educates the reader on how to avoid these pitfalls and how to pull oneself out of the mire of them and back onto solid and peaceful ground once again. I give this book at 3.5 for her sincerity and conviction to help those caught in the pits of hell on earth.
Some will laugh at her efforts, some will scoff at her remarks, but I guarantee you that anyone who has experienced even one of the portals to hell that she exposes will not only understand her but appreciate her willingness to endure ridicule inorder to SET THE CAPTIVES FREE and do that by teaching them to PREPARE FOR WAR.
end quote
Im pretty sure that should annoy some atheists while I dont know why, they dont believe in Gd so they cant believe in satan, they dont believe in heaven so therefore according to them there is no hell, according to them they have nothing to worry about then! But for those who have seen or experienced satan and his demons, whether in black masses or in dabbling with witchcraft, those people prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Gd exists....and there is a way out of the curse of satanism and that way out is JESUS CHRIST!
- angelmama
September 27, 2009 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yawn
I sincerely doubt Ms. Brown provides actual unrefutable evidence to say that satan/demons exist. If she did, I think it would make global news. Most atheists will not hold unwavering validity to something which is not soundly substantiated by evidence.
- learnlogic
September 27, 2009 10:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We cannot see a black hole in space either
the only way we know it exists is because of the impact it has on space around it....much like Gd and satan!
http://www.space.com/blackholes /
- angelmama
September 29, 2009 6:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
observation
We can observe the presence of a black hole by seeing how the stars behind it distort or by observing the accretion disk that forms as a black hole siphons matter from a near by star.
Black holes are also defined mathematically... appearing in the Theory of Relativity long before they were observed (the math is really quite enjoyably elegant).
- MrBook
September 29, 2009 10:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God and evilSatanists
Get it in to your head Jesus was not a christ he was just an ordinary man going around with a lot of men, making magic which at that time people would believe all they were told and thought it was true.
God is supposed to be invisible knows everything, let him stop wars then, stop poverty ,stop priests abusing children , islam women burning themselves to death for fear of what their husbands will do to them.
People are still trying to get on the band wagon and make themselves important. Even some will confess to a murder they have'nt done to get notarity.
Why does your god hate me so, i dont hate him. No answer to that I suppose.
If a priest told you that he had seen Elvis Presley lat week would you believe him. Well maybe you would after all he only speaks gods word.
- beinghuman
October 10, 2009 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God.
God doesn't hate you.
- mike1948
October 14, 2009 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
science
i think this science you so much trustv in is just a humanly way of understanding whats around us ang it is a way of getting around the truth, but God loves u all anyways :)
- freddy628
September 28, 2009 8:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Around and around and around we go...
I have read all of these comments and I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to the big question of "Is there a god ?" one cannot give a yes/no answer based on purely scientific explanation. It is quite apparent that anyone can say anything scientific that supports either side of this topic, and it can be discredited by someone else on some other scientific base. We can go around and around in circles trying to prove/disprove the existence of God but we can never satisfy everyone's needs for it to be totally "proven". But, the nice thing about God is that He is not only seen in the design of the universe, but also in the design of our mind/conscious. I know that these discussions are supposed to be more scientifically drawn so I won't ramble on about this subject, I just want to make the point that this question of God cannot be answered completely scientifically. And it is funny how two of the most confusing and complex things in physical existence, the universe and the human brain, are the two things that believers of God use to prove the existence of God.
But please, continue debating. It is interesting to see all the different views that come up.
God bless :)
- bossk015
November 19, 2009 4:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.