Does God exist?

[CopaceticMan]

I tried posting a similar question, but the way I phrased it got rejected. So here it is in the way I meant it.


Yes I am an atheist, and I don't believe (I don't claim as some would put it). I am open to believe, but see no reason to.

[Katabole]

Hi CopaceticMan,

Here is a small list of famous scientists who believed in Jesus Christ:

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thoson Kelvin
Max Planck

Here is a scientist who believed in God:

Albert Einstein

The following is my favorite quote by Einstein:

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. --Albert Einstein

If all the scientists I listed believed in and had a relationship with a personal Jesus Christ and Einstein himself would not deny that Jesus was a myth, why would you claim there's no reason to believe in God, unless you can show you are smarter than those listed?

[CopaceticMan]

Here is a small list of famous scientists who believed in Jesus Christ:

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thoson Kelvin
Max Planck

Here is a scientist who believed in God:

Albert Einstein

That's nice. Most people throughout history have. Is that supposed to be convincing? Just because a bunch of respectable people believe in God, doesn't make it a good reason, it isn't even a reason. This is an argumentum ad populum and is a logical fallacy.

The following is my favorite quote by Einstein:

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. --Albert Einstein

If all the scientists I listed believed in and had a relationship with a personal Jesus Christ and Einstein himself would not deny that Jesus was a myth, why would you claim there's no reason to believe in God, unless you can show you are smarter than those listed?

Well, to nit pick at Einsteins quote, When he says "[n]o one can read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus" is wrong. I can, and have. On top of that I can read a fiction book and 'feel' the presence of the main character. I can hear him speak. I can see him walk, talk, fight, transform (Book I read in sixth grade, not the transformers), etc. So this quote doesn't bear any significance to me.

I don't deny that Jesus was a myth, at least in the sense that he lived and died as a man. I don't think that Jesus lived as God incarnated, as he claims he is. He also claims he is the son of God... Which is it. Just because these guys believe in God, isn't a reason for me to. This is also an argumentum ad populum. Also, does it matter if I am or am not smarter than them? If I'm right, I'm right. It has no bearing on my intelligence. Would you argue you are more intelligent than Dawkins? I don't know your profession, but I doubt it is as a biologist, or any scientist. If you are going to use that on me I can use it on you. On top of that, the reason I disbelieve is not because I think Dawkins is smart, but because I don't see any reason to (in other words there is no, or no convincing, evidence)



I may sound like a militant atheist, but I am truly not. I am open to belief (I want to, but I can't. It's like being gay, I didn't choose it, but until there is evidence I can't change), but don't see any reason for it, and until I do, I'll use all the logic I can find.

[Katabole]

No problem CopaceticMan. I couldn't convince you to believe in God regardless of scientists who believed or the vast amounts of archaeological evidence that point to Christianity being true, or the cultural influnce of Christianity over the last 2000 years. As Jesus says:

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (KJV)

I really hope you sit down with an open mind and read Moses and the prophets because that is the only thing that will convince or persuade you.

And again as Jesus says:

John 5:46 For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

John 5:47 But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?

[Seraph]

Hey CopaceticMan

I believe Katabole's reason for listing famous intellegent people who believe in God wasn't to try and show that since smart people believe in God, you should too. Rather, it's to show that belief in God does have a rational basis and isn't simply for less than intellegent people like militant Atheists often claim.

I would say there definately is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. The main site has a bunch of articles that present a lot of it quite well.
For me personally, the strongest pieces are the fine-tuning of the Big Bang arguement and seeing God's mark in nature (I don't mean the same thing as saying "This is too complex, so God must have done it". Rather I mean the beauty in both nature and deep space to me speaks of intent). I love science and I see evidence in the current "scientific conscencous", though like Katabole said, science is limited and makes many assumptions, like that all truth can be observed by our five senses and tested in a lab (which if you think about it, almost certainly can't be true). Much of the evidence is interpreted by scientists with personal feelings and deep seated beliefs of their own, which can often hinder whether they are actually presenting the "capital T" Truth or not. It's true that much of the evidence for God can't be tested in a lab so it can't be completely proven in scientific circles, but it's enough to get a person to believe.

As for if Jesus was (and if so, still is) the Son of God or not, the evidence for that is in the Bible itself. The books of the Old Testament were written hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus was born and by many different authors yet contain some pretty vivid descriptions of the coming messiah, which events in Jesus' life correlate with rather well (such as Isaiah 53:12). As well as that, it's rather unusual how quickly and successfully Christianity was able to spread, considering that self-procliamed messiahs were nothing new and Christianity was under attempted suppression by the Roman government. Mix this in with the disciples being willing to die for what they saw (which secular historical sources other than just the Bible were able to confirm were systematically executed for their belief in Jesus), and I think you have some pretty good evidence that Christianity has a divine spark.

As many will tell you though, with much of Christianity it will be less reliant on observable evidence (though it exists) and more reliant on personal experience with a relationship with God.

[Gman]

I tried posting a similar question, but the way I phrased it got rejected. So here it is in the way I meant it.


Yes I am an atheist, and I don't believe (I don't claim as some would put it). I am open to believe, but see no reason to.

So.. What are your reasons for not believing in God?

[RickD]

I don't think that Jesus lived as God incarnated, as he claims he is

CopaceticMan,

It's funny to me that you wrote this. Where does Jesus claim He is God incarnate? In the bible. John 5:17-18 Jesus claimed God is his Father, making Him equal to God. Can't you see that God is speaking to you when you read the bible? On one hand, you say that Jesus is not God incarnate. On the other hand, You seem to believe that the Bible says that Jesus is God in the flesh. Many atheists claim that Jesus is not fully God, but they won't at least be honest enough to admit that the Bible claims Jesus is God. See what happens when you honestly search for God? He speaks to you through the Bible.

Ultimately, no one here can convince you that there is a God. You need to ask God to reveal Himself to you when you read the Bible. If you are honestly seeking Him, He will reveal Himself to you.

[jlay]

Copecetic,

You are exactly right. Truth is not determined by popular opinion. It doesn't matter how many scientists believe or don't believe. What matters is why they believe or don't. Something is either true or it is false. It is not more true just because people come to discover and recognize it as truth. The laws of logic are not true because we agree they work. In the same way it doesn't matter how many scientists or text books say that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
Of course there are methods of gaining knowledge and facts that are beyond science. History is not a science, but we do rely on history. Eye witness testimony is not science, but we also rely on it. Also, all science is not operational. Forensic science certainly helps us look at things in the present to draw conclusions on the past.

I'm curious what you mean by, 'open to believe.'
And that you don't see any reason to believe.

As far as evidence, I'd be curious to know why you think people are even capable of examing evidence and trusting it. You cite logical fallacies. But on what grounds do you hold that logic is a reliable method of determing the validity of an argument? I'm not asking if logic exists. Obviously you agree it does, and that it works. But why does it exist? Why can, and why should we rely on it in the first place? What is its source?


The reason you should believe is that just as a drowning man needs rescue, so a sinner needs saving. There is absolutely no question that if the bible is true, you have every reason to believe.
So, let's not confuse the reasons to believe with the evidence that supports belief. Although they certainly will cross and intermingle, they are different. Belief is not a matter of stacking evidence to tilt the scales to one side or the other. People are very peculiar, and will deny truth even when the evidence on a matter seems to be obvious. The ultimate belief that 'beleivers' have is based on one knowing and placing their trust in their personal savior. All the evidence may give a person 'reasons' to accept or consider that a god exists, but not a reason to believe/trust that rescuer for their own salvation.

As far as evidence? Well, it is abundant. But as with making any circumstantial case, the evidence is in the eye of the beholder. (Ask OJ Simpson) It would be quite interesting of me to assert that a new and unique computer program was on the market, and that the unique nature was that the advanced code lacked a programmer. That the computer code formed because the materials and conditions provided a perfect environment for the code to self-generate. I suspect you'd be prepared to call baloney on that. But, even more, I then assert that the conditions and materials originated spontaneously out of nothing. That this usable code was the result of chance processes. That all it took was the right materials, conditions, and time, all of which required no guidance of a programmer or material provider.

I assume you would recognize the absurdity of such claims and would immediately think I was either lying or had lost my mind. Yet, science agrees that life on this earth is the result of information code. That everything we consider 'life" is in fact full of coded information. Although crude, my example sadly describes what many so called genius minds use to explain the origins of some of the most amazing operating systems in the cosmos. You and me. In fact, we are computers analyzing data, using laws of logic, reason and science. And yet, many of us deny that we have a programmer. And don't even know why those laws should exist in the 1st place.

Is evidence really your problem?
Share with us.

[joejmz]

I tried posting a similar question, but the way I phrased it got rejected. So here it is in the way I meant it.


Yes I am an atheist, and I don't believe (I don't claim as some would put it). I am open to believe, but see no reason to.

What would you see as a reason to recognize God's existence?

[talkingwalnut]

If I could I would like to give another angle to this ..I think it would only make this topic that much more fair for him to come to a conclusion.

Albert Einstein only said he could only FEEL the words of Jesus.

Just like John Lennon's words
Just like Martin Luther king's words

all great men with inspiration to make a change ...all killed.

Albert Einstein didn't even believe in a personal god..he said he can't see how a god would reward and punish his own creations.

[puritan lad]

CopaceticMan,

To rephrase Joejmz's question, what would you consider to be valid proof of God's existence? Proving God's existence is rather easy. Persuading the unbeliever, on the other hand, is not.

[Gman]

Proving God's existence is rather easy. Persuading the unbeliever, on the other hand, is not.

A lot of it is doing God's will. Practicing the examples in the Torah is the way how I believe most find Him. At least for me.. Putting off sin nature and such. In fact the more I walk with God, it's not really the facts or scientific facts that back up my faith, it's following His examples. It becomes ingrained after awhile, natural..

I'm sorry for those who miss it... Wow, very sad.

[CopaceticMan]

the vast amounts of archaeological evidence that point to Christianity being true

Like? If there was, don't you think that the scientific community would have adopted the view that Christianity is correct (and what parts? Genesis, The Flood, Jesus? Or just certain parts that are cherry picked?). The scientific community is not against God, or the Bible. In the lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, the position is that this thing is wrong. There are scientists who believe in God and Jesus, so to say that science would never accept Jesus is just wrong (not that anyone is saying it, YET). And about the theoretical sciences. While they have no experimental evidence, they have mathematical evidence. They are currently waiting on the experimental evidence.

I really hope you sit down with an open mind and read Moses and the prophets because that is the only thing that will convince or persuade you.

CopaceticMan wrote:
I tried posting a similar question, but the way I phrased it got rejected. So here it is in the way I meant it.


Yes I am an atheist, and I don't believe (I don't claim as some would put it). I am open to believe, but see no reason to.

What would you see as a reason to recognize God's existence?

It is not the only thing that would persuade me. You have to show why it is accurate, but even if we ignore that, physical evidence would be enough. You have to show a few things that are ONLY explainable by God's existence. AND you have to show which GOD. There are many hundreds of thousands (maybe just tens, I have a book in my school library that lists every, or almost every, known god.), not including the ones I could make up right now that would be nearly, or just as, valid as your god. You also would have to take your evidence to the scientific community to be scrutinized, beaten and eaten. If it makes it through, it will (most likely slowly) be accepted as fact (or technically theory, if you want to stay within science). I am willing to accept God, but no good reason has ever been presented to me, ever.

I believe Katabole's reason for listing famous intellegent people who believe in God wasn't to try and show that since smart people believe in God, you should too. Rather, it's to show that belief in God does have a rational basis and isn't simply for less than intellegent people like militant Atheists often claim.

Just because some (and only some), believe in God isn't reason for me to do so either. What about all the Muslim scientists? Should I accept Islam because some Muslim scientists do? What about all of the Buddhist scientists? You get the point. And the fact that they accept it doesn't mean they have a rational reason, or evidence.

I would say there definately is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. The main site has a bunch of articles that present a lot of it quite well.
For me personally, the strongest pieces are the fine-tuning of the Big Bang arguement and seeing God's mark in nature (I don't mean the same thing as saying "This is too complex, so God must have done it". Rather I mean the beauty in both nature and deep space to me speaks of intent). I love science and I see evidence in the current "scientific conscencous", though like Katabole said, science is limited and makes many assumptions, like that all truth can be observed by our five senses and tested in a lab (which if you think about it, almost certainly can't be true). Much of the evidence is interpreted by scientists with personal feelings and deep seated beliefs of their own, which can often hinder whether they are actually presenting the "capital T" Truth or not. It's true that much of the evidence for God can't be tested in a lab so it can't be completely proven in scientific circles, but it's enough to get a person to believe.

Well you say there is a bunch of evidence, but what you present is just some bad arguments that, with a basic understanding of theoretical physics, are shown why they are bad. The fine-tuning is pretty well explained by the multi-verse theory. I don't want to explain it, because I'll butcher it, but if you look for a physics website you can find a pretty good explanation (or look for it on You Tube, there are a lot off good videos explaining theories better than I could... at least FOR NOW ). Plus, the idea that the universe is made for US is pretty much has a huge whole blown in it if you look, by volume, at all the areas we can't live (like 99%). Just by area, on Earth, we can only live in like >25% of Earth's surface. The idea that the universe is designed for us is rather dumb (IMO)... Science is limited by what we can detect with our five senses, yes. But not just by our current sense capability. Amplifications of our senses expand the range of what we can detect, so we are not literally bound by our five senses. If we can test it, then it will be considered as fact (if confirmed). Until we can test for something (either by inference, or direct testing) then it won't, ever, be considered anything more than a hypothesis. that whole thing about science making assumptions is kinda wrong. Your whole thing about scientists interpreting the data is wrong, that's what peer review is for. You put an idea in the machine, and a lot of cogs, with different shapes and sizes, go through the movements. If the idea/hypothesis/theory fits all cogs (or most, depending on what idea, and how new it is. If it only fits most, then it still needs to be tested. If evidence comes along that challenges an explanation, then ), then it is accepted by the machine. (did you get that the cogs are facts? If a certain explanation fits the facts, and better explains everything than another explanation, then it is considered theory.)

Your thing about God not being testable (paraphrased) is exactly why I disbelieve. More people will continue to fall out of Christianity, until your God is proven.

P.s. If belief is all that is required, doesn't that seem kind of stupid. If I live my life not believing, then at the last minute change my mind out of fear, would that still count?

As for if Jesus was (and if so, still is) the Son of God or not, the evidence for that is in the Bible itself. The books of the Old Testament were written hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus was born and by many different authors yet contain some pretty vivid descriptions of the coming messiah, which events in Jesus' life correlate with rather well (such as Isaiah 53:12). As well as that, it's rather unusual how quickly and successfully Christianity was able to spread, considering that self-procliamed messiahs were nothing new and Christianity was under attempted suppression by the Roman government. Mix this in with the disciples being willing to die for what they saw (which secular historical sources other than just the Bible were able to confirm were systematically executed for their belief in Jesus), and I think you have some pretty good evidence that Christianity has a divine spark.

As many will tell you though, with much of Christianity it will be less reliant on observable evidence (though it exists) and more reliant on personal experience with a relationship with God.

Couldn't it be that those who wrote the new testament did so in such a way to MAKE it fit the old testament? Plus the spread of Christianity may have been the result of the birth rate. Those religions who promote lots of kids tend to spread a lot easier. Or it could have been the whole Hell thing: Scare people into believing can work pretty well too. If Christianity had been successfully been suppressed, it would be gone. So, could it be that the Romans didn't do a good job?

The disciples thing is nothing new. Many people, throughout history, have been, and did, die for what they believe.\

If I haven't ever had any contact with God, can I really be blamed for disbelieving? If you look at what the Bible says, there are a lot of things in there, that when looked at from a non-believer's eyes, look really stupid.

So.. What are your reasons for not believing in God?

Do I HAVE to have a reason? Remember, I am still in the null hypothesis. You make a claim (God), prove it (hasn't been done, at least not to anyone's satisfaction who is an outsider), then I will. If I claim that I have a giant dragon in my back yard, that is invisible, undetectable, and can rip your head off at any moment if you're not careful would you believe me? Now what if I said you just have to believe me when I say it's there, but you have take it on faith, bring a cattle to it everyday, AND say that if you don't you'll get your head ripped off, would you believe me? I highly doubt it. That's that way Yahweh appears to me.

If you must have a reason, fine. First, no one ever forced God on me, so I naturally disbelieve. Second, everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian is ill-logical. Third, I naturally am skeptical of supernatural claims, and am not easily persuaded by love and faith.

It's funny to me that you wrote this. Where does Jesus claim He is God incarnate? In the bible. John 5:17-18 Jesus claimed God is his Father, making Him equal to God. Can't you see that God is speaking to you when you read the bible? On one hand, you say that Jesus is not God incarnate. On the other hand, You seem to believe that the Bible says that Jesus is God in the flesh. Many atheists claim that Jesus is not fully God, but they won't at least be honest enough to admit that the Bible claims Jesus is God. See what happens when you honestly search for God? He speaks to you through the Bible.

Ultimately, no one here can convince you that there is a God. You need to ask God to reveal Himself to you when you read the Bible. If you are honestly seeking Him, He will reveal Himself to you.

I'll admit that I may be wrong about that point, I am no Bible scholar. Here are two passages that I could find that said something to the effect that Jesus is God.
John 1:1+14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
1 Timothy 3:16
God was made manifest in the flesh.

I also have to ask: Do you believe Jesus is God, or not? You say that the Bible says Jesus is God's son (which makes me think that you think this to). But you then also say that the Bible says Jesus is God. Typo? And, he hasn't spoken to me, all I see are a bunch of words when I read the Bible.

God will reveal himself to me if I seek him, or burn me for not seeing a reason to seek him. All-loving my ass.

Of course there are methods of gaining knowledge and facts that are beyond science. History is not a science, but we do rely on history. Eye witness testimony is not science, but we also rely on it. Also, all science is not operational. Forensic science certainly helps us look at things in the present to draw conclusions on the past.

We rely on history because the evidence says this happened at this time, not just random guesses based on a book, or any other document.

We DO NOT rely on eye-witness testimony. If I say that Obama was killed, and I saw it, but all the evidence says that he is still alive, then I am wrong. Plus, in criminal investigations, eye-witness testimony is not very good. I have to have evidence that John killed Jack. I can't say that because Mary saw John kill Jack, John should go to jail. Mary gets the investigation started, and if her testimony agrees with the evidence then her testimony is reliable. If it doesn't, it isn't. Mary COULD be lying. We don't do that in researching history either. If we did, then every claim, ever, would be treated as fact. Just because some guy wrote about the world being flooded, doesn't mean it happened, especially when there is no evidence for it, and all the evidence against it.

Forensic science is based on proven principles, such as Newtonian mechanics, biology, etc. There are things we don't know everything about, and may never, if the evidence is destroyed. Forensic science isn't mysterious, but is quite obvious and simple.

I'm curious what you mean by, 'open to believe.'
And that you don't see any reason to believe.

I am willing to believe in God, but I am not convinced by anything anyone has presented me with, thus far. I am not so arrogant that I will say I will never believe. Except for the fact that under current evidence, nothing is convincing nor is most of it even logical. LET ALONE TESTED.

As far as evidence, I'd be curious to know why you think people are even capable of examing evidence and trusting it. You cite logical fallacies. But on what grounds do you hold that logic is a reliable method of determing the validity of an argument? I'm not asking if logic exists. Obviously you agree it does, and that it works. But why does it exist? Why can, and why should we rely on it in the first place? What is its source?

Well, we have these things called observations. For example, you hear a dog's bark (but you don't see one). We measure the frequency, determine the amplitude, etc. and can do it repeatedly (easily if we record it). We determine that, based on a database of recorded dog barks observed to come from this breed of dog, this dog bark is of a type of chihuahua.

When you can repeatedly get the same results from a device, we call it reliable, especially when based off of a known example. When you have an experiment, you should repeat it multiple times, to ensure accuracy. If your results are accurate within a certain range, then we call that accurate. When you compare your result to your prediction (as with physics) or to the facts/explanations (as with, say, forensics (markings on a bullet recovered at a crime scene are consistent with the test bullet fired from the suspects gun. We can conclude that the most likely, and what we can also call most logical, solution is that the bullet came from the suspects gun. Most likely=most logical with given evidence.)). People don't have to do it directly, we can enter data into programs that will do it for us. Arguments are based on evidence (good or bad).

If what you're claiming fits with a given set of data (or evidence) we can conclude that this argument (which is based on data, and strings it together with an explanation) has flaw in it or not. These flaws are based on evidence which is included or excluded or bad or good (as in accurate), and explanations that contradict itself or each other or don't (I may be forgetting a part, but my point still remains). If the evidence is bad, you have to correct it. If you are excluding data (which can, again, be called evidence), you have to include it (unless you don't need it because another set of data fits and is a good substitute). if you don't, and the evidence would undermine your explanation, then you're a liar/fibber/(insert synonym here). If your explanation contradicts itself, than you have to change it. If you don't, you're crazy/liar/you get the point. (I assume you know what a contradiction is.) So far this hasn't been about logic. An example would be: You hear a sound in your closet. You may think that an animal may have knocked down, just out of instinct. You open your closet to see a box lying on the ground and your self broken. You can conclude that your shelf broke, dropping the box. You can still say, based on the evidence an animal broke your shelf. You look for holes in the wall where it could have escaped, or any other sign an animal would have been in there. There is none. Well you can still say that the animal was in there, but it didn't leave a trace, and escaped when you opened the door, without you noticing. Which one is better? Forces of gravity, and weakening of the shelf over time caused the shelf to break, or an animal, which leaves no traces behind, ran so fast you didn't see it run out of the room, very quiet, and maybe some other things, broke the shelf. (Plus forces of gravity).

One matches the data as it is, the other matches it, but requires more data that wasn't there. (Lack of evidence can count as evidence of absence, but if you stick to straight philosophy, then it does not.) You can conclude that the scenario without the animal is more reasonable, because it matches the data better. And because it is more reasonable it is more logical.

Plus, there is a branch of mathematics that deals with logic. You have 'unique' operations (similar to set math). You can look it up, or at a separate time I'll explain it to you. (Assuming you don't know what it is.)

Logic may be something that we made up, but it is very useful when coming up with an explanation or choosing between current explanations.

The reason you should believe is that just as a drowning man needs rescue, so a sinner needs saving. There is absolutely no question that if the bible is true, you have every reason to believe.
So, let's not confuse the reasons to believe with the evidence that supports belief. Although they certainly will cross and intermingle, they are different. Belief is not a matter of stacking evidence to tilt the scales to one side or the other. People are very peculiar, and will deny truth even when the evidence on a matter seems to be obvious. The ultimate belief that 'beleivers' have is based on one knowing and placing their trust in their personal savior. All the evidence may give a person 'reasons' to accept or consider that a god exists, but not a reason to believe/trust that rescuer for their own salvation.

As far as evidence? Well, it is abundant. But as with making any circumstantial case, the evidence is in the eye of the beholder. (Ask OJ Simpson) It would be quite interesting of me to assert that a new and unique computer program was on the market, and that the unique nature was that the advanced code lacked a programmer. That the computer code formed because the materials and conditions provided a perfect environment for the code to self-generate. I suspect you'd be prepared to call baloney on that. But, even more, I then assert that the conditions and materials originated spontaneously out of nothing. That this usable code was the result of chance processes. That all it took was the right materials, conditions, and time, all of which required no guidance of a programmer or material provider.

I assume you would recognize the absurdity of such claims and would immediately think I was either lying or had lost my mind. Yet, science agrees that life on this earth is the result of information code. That everything we consider 'life" is in fact full of coded information. Although crude, my example sadly describes what many so called genius minds use to explain the origins of some of the most amazing operating systems in the cosmos. You and me. In fact, we are computers analyzing data, using laws of logic, reason and science. And yet, many of us deny that we have a programmer. And don't even know why those laws should exist in the 1st place.

Is evidence really your problem?
Share with us.

I hope you realize that there is an inherent difference between a computer program, and biology. You can't take an analogy of something, that we both agree can't even reproduce, or even live (by the definition of a living organism/cell), and turn it into a thing that can. But for the purposes of the example I'll go along with it.

You say that ALL the required materials were there prior to the code, and with enough time, the code came about. Ignoring how, you had the precursor, and it came about, therefore it is at least possible. Especially since all the conditions were perfect. I also presume this is a genetic code, and a virus (otherwise it wouldn't be able to do it.)

Am I a theoretical biologist? No. Can I explain abiogenesis very well? No. Why don't I give you a video that explains it better than I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

We know that certain amino acids can form by themselves. (whether or not they formed on Earth is still up for grabs) We know that fatty acids can form by themselves as well. We know that all the conditions for creating life are, at least, possible. All the processes are possible. When you have trillions and trillions of molecules, and hundreds of thousands of years, the odds, while still unlikely may only produce one cell. (Have you ever heard that anything that has like 1/50,000 in happening can be considered zero. When you have trillions of chances, anything that has a non-zero chance of happening, can happen. And the probabilities that some people come up with are just ridiculous. A good understanding of abiogenesis will show the holder of the knowledge that abiogenesis is possible, and that those who made up those probabilities, likely pulled them out of their butt.)

From what I understand, scientists think that origin of the universe came from a quantum fluctuation that inflated. Quantum physicists, when they say that every thing came from nothing, they don't literally mean ex nihilo, out of nothing. What they speak of when they say nothing is the background on which everything, we see, exists. Do I know what this is? No. Am I a string theorist? No. Do I know more about this than the average person, yes. Can I in due time? Yes. Am I explaning this at a 100% accuracy, no. Why don't you go find a physicist and ask him to explain this to you.

P.s. If the evidence is abundant, why isn't God an accepted scientific fact? (I already said above that science isn't against God, and there is no conspiracy against God.) And yes, evidence is my problem (as in, there is none, and you didn't provide any. Al you said was say that there was a bunch, but didn't follow up.).

[puritan lad]

You make a claim (God), prove it (hasn't been done, at least not to anyone's satisfaction who is an outsider), then I will

You ma believe this statement to be true, but I doubt it is. As I stated before, proving God's existence is child's play.

P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

The problem you have isn't a lack of evidence, for you have the same evidence that we all have. The problem is that you have precommitted yourself to a materialistic workdview.

But you do know God exists, because you live in His universe, and would not be able to function without acknowledging Him in some way. Knowledge is only one area where you prove this to be true.

P.s. If the evidence is abundant, why isn't God an accepted scientific fact?

This is an argumentum ad verecundiam. Since when is science an authority on God?

[Gman]

So.. What are your reasons for not believing in God?

Do I HAVE to have a reason? Remember, I am still in the null hypothesis. You make a claim (God), prove it (hasn't been done, at least not to anyone's satisfaction who is an outsider), then I will. If I claim that I have a giant dragon in my back yard, that is invisible, undetectable, and can rip your head off at any moment if you're not careful would you believe me? Now what if I said you just have to believe me when I say it's there, but you have take it on faith, bring a cattle to it everyday, AND say that if you don't you'll get your head ripped off, would you believe me? I highly doubt it. That's that way Yahweh appears to me.

No one here has 100 percent proof that God exists. No one, including on this forum. Where are you getting this? But that doesn't mean we can't have our convictions either..

If you must have a reason, fine. First, no one ever forced God on me, so I naturally disbelieve. Second, everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian is ill-logical. Third, I naturally am skeptical of supernatural claims, and am not easily persuaded by love and faith.

What's this? Well, everything is built on faith.. Even if you deny that God exists you still have to have faith in something else. We ALL have faith. Even you.. You cannot escape it. There is no 100 percent proof of anything.. It's all faith driven. Even in the sciences...

Welcome to the club..