Evidence for God from Science

Zoe, you are right on the money. While Dawkins' grasp of theology and philosophy is shockingly naive, he certainly understands the implications of his own worldview.

Kopepod, I did not say that science is a religion. Try again. And read Zoegirl's reply carefully, as you appear to have very little grasp of your worldview and its implications.

To Zoegirl - In your reply you try to associate atheists with murder and rape. This is unfair and irresponsible. Empathy and compassion seem to be sources of decent behaviour. I cannot tell you if empathy and compassion are an integral part of human nature as I do not know. I am no expert in this area. Some report I read highlighted a study that pyscopaths lack empathy and compassion. Did they learn to be pyscopathic or are they born that way? I do know that decent/kind people can be found amongst religious and the non-religious groups. Those with less welcome behaviours can be found in both groups too.

DannyM wrote:Try again. And read Zoegirl's reply carefully, as you appear to have very little grasp of your worldview and its implications.

Isn't that a common error amongst Atheist? No one, and I repeat no one is saying that Atheist can't act morally. Of course they can, and do. We are just saying that they have no foundation to support a reason for such. And so they have to stand on our worldview to attempt to discredit it. At least some of the things Dawkins says are consistent with his worldview.

kopepod wrote:DannyM - Don't expect science to behave like religion. It is not an 'incoherent religion'. It is not a religion. Personally I'm not worried about there being no meaning in the physical environment. One can still live a meaningful interesting life without religion and I do..

Science is not a religion, but people will ALWAYS inject their philosophical beliefs into it.. One's religion and science must conflict because science and religion deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations.

kopepod wrote: Marcus - I said, if there was enough evidence to convince me I would convert. You ask how much evidence. I don't know in what form that evidence would arrive, if it was ever to transpire. .

The reason I asked that is because I wondered if you realized that there -is- actually positive evidence of the existence of God. More than some might think, actually. It's rather silly to dismiss it outright. I think it's an important thing to note that for 2000 years, Christianity has stood its ground with intellectual integrity, and good (and increasingly better) evidence. I find that alone to be evidence in favor of Christianity's unique claims. If you are open to evidence, the main site has much and I'd also check the Resources forum. I know you mentioned that you were going to avoid discussion for a while, but I hope you'll take the time to look into all of that.

I know I personally have doubted my faith at times but the evidence is really there, and I find when one is willing to see it, they'll see evidence in things that before seemed like arguments against them. I can't even describe how often that's been the case with me, from denominations in Christianity, to the evil in the world, etc. I can see God's Hands in those things now in ways I could not before. Like I said, it starts with willingness to see. I don't know where you stand and it would be difficult to guess just based on some forum posts. I believe that Christianity has the wonderful attribute of being true, and so any scrutiny or honest questioning is more than welcome, since it just reaffirms it in the end.

Gman wrote:Good point... I believe there is no such thing as philosophy free science. Everyone says you can divorce philosophy from science, or that evolution is "neutral" toward science, but if you give completely naturalistic explanations for life then by default you are upholding the naturalistic view. All you have to do is add time, chance, and natural selection as your god and whola, you have your own philosophy/religion.

Actually, this isnt really true...
I believe it is completly possibly to come to the view that there is a God, and from a "naturalistic" perspective, and God agrees, he said so here "Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Note what method God says it is possible not only to know that there is a God, but some of his attributes as well, "by what is made" by the natural world, in short, by a "completly naturalistic perspective". Thus, God says that it IS possible to come to a belief in God with this perspective, and in fact, rather easily to, since it is "clearly seen", so that they are "without excuse". Therefore, I can clearly see that this idea, this "war of science versus religion", is not from God, but a trick of Satan, designed to make sure that we DONT see what is "clearly seen".

So, if God says it's possible, lets try it, shall we? First, we start at the beginning, and see that both science and the bible talk about a big bang. But science then goes further, and tells us that, yes, it happened, but the way this universe turned out, it's properties, is so very improbable that one of two things must be true, there are an infinite number of universes, and this one just got lucky, or there is an infinitly smart being outside this universe who can dream up an infinite number of fictitional universes (God the science fiction author), and decide on the one that works. The infnite universes idea has absolutly zip, zilch, zero, nada data to back it up. The God idea has The Shroud of Turin, multiple people witnessing miricles by some guy named Jesus and later by his followers (and some since then to), all that archeological evidence backing up the bible, and perhaps most telling, that the bible describes the big bang, planatery formation, and the order that life appeared on this planet, long before mankind had any way of knowing these things.

But wait, there's more, then, there's life. Life obviously exists, but, when we look at how life could come into existance from non life, we see that, once again, it is statistically impossible (see here http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap ... tein-1.php it goes into great detail on the problems of all the different theories of how life could have evolved from non life). The evolutionist theory says that it is possible, but cannot say how, which degrades it from the status of scientific theory to being merely a belief (which doesn't say that it is true or false, merely that we cannot say how it might be true). When all the possible theories of how it could have evolved are looked at, we see that the improbability of it looks to be even less probable than this universe being as it is, and that is so improbable that this univwerse is called "preposterous" by scientists. One preposterous thing, followed by an even more unlikely one, now that is too far, even if there were an infinite number of universes. It is as if you sat down a whole lot of monkeys, and one started typing out all of Shakespears plays, starting with the first one and ending at the last, all with the correct spelling and puncuation. There are some things that simply can't happen, no matter how many monkeys you have, or how long they type away, even if there are an infinite number of monkeys and infinite time to type. There simply sin't enough time and chance to ever get it done.

Now there are three theories of how life could have evolved. It happened by miricle, God simply made life from nothing, breaking natural law, conclusion, there is a God. It happened by "Intelligent Design", God did a long series of smaller miricles, once again breaking natural law, conclusion, there is a God. And the third, it happened comepletly naturalistically, no natural natural laws were broken. This third idea, however, is so very unlikely that it can only happen if there is a God who set in motion a long string of events such that at a single point in time and space, a series of extremly improbable events happened all in a very precise sequence, with the result that one moment there was no life, and the next there was this tiny but extremely complex little critter, complete with the ability to procreate itself (otherwise it would die and that would be the end of it) and to mutate and evolve (which must also be designed in). In short, we have three choices, there is a God, there is a God, or, there is a God. Choose one.

Note about the bible, it says that life came about in gen 1, however, it does not say HOW, simply that God did it, method unspecified. Thus, all three possibilities above are possible from a biblical world view. Gen 2 has the only method specified, stating exactly how mankind was 'fashioned" in a way unlike any of the other life, which makes sense when you think about it, if they evolve slowly from non sentience to sentience, when do you give them a soul, do half sentient beings have free will, do they go to heaven or hell?

But wait, theres even more! This looking at the natural world not only tells, nay demands, that there must be a God, but it tells us of it's attributes also, just as Romans says it does. It says not only is God powerfull, but infinitly smart. One can only be infinitly smart if one is not of this physical world, not made of atoms or molecules or photons or anything. Just look at this computer, it has been shown that there is a natural level of computing power beyond which a computer cannot go, the physical laws of this universe demand it ( http://www.insidescience.org/research/c ... more_years ) . Thus, God must be "a spirit", just as God himself said, a being of pure thought. If he were not, there would be no universe, and no life, there is, thus, God exists, and is a spirit ("his divine nature").

But there's more, it also says "God is love" How, you ask? Well, a God who can dream up an infinite number of universes, and who is not physical, or part of this space/time continuum, has nothing to fear from you. There is nothing you can do to hurt God, in fact, you cannot even reach outside this universe to get at God. And if this God felt threatened in any way by you, that God could simply cancel the universe, past, present, and future, and remake it, past, present, and future, only this time, without you in it. Therefore, God cannot hate, because hate comes from fear, and God has nothing to fear. Therefore, God is love.

Also, we can tell what religions might be true from all this. Such a God, not being physical, has no needs, certainly none that we could fulfill (since we can't even reach God, how could we?). This automatically eliminates most of the worlds religions, they say, do such and such for God, and God will love you, or at least accept you. But there is nothing you can do for God that God cannot do a thousand times better himself. So a true religion would be one where God loves us, and God himself does himself what is nessissary for him to accept us, and that leaves only christianity and what Jesus did himself as the sole remaining possible, yay, nesissary, religion.

In short, the idea that a naturalistic view is wrong and anti God is shown comeplety and "plainly" (to use Gods own words) false in Rom 1:19 , and in science. If you beleive in God, then you must also beleive God, what God said. Therefore, you must deal with Rom 1:19 and what it "plainly" says. To do otherwise is to reject God word, and thus God.

And the idea that a "naturalistic view" must be anti God is shown to be "plainly" a lie, and where do lies come from. Thats right, Satan. I posted a possible ficticious account of how Satan might start the whole "war of science and religion" thing going here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 1&start=15 (sort of screwtape meets a young earth creationist).

Of course, what I have written here is so "clearly seen" Rom 1:19 in the bible that I expect it to be apposed by all "right thinking people" everywhere. Not to suprising, the idea of printing bibles in the local language, that reformation thing, and that christianity thing, were also apposed by right thinking people, there really is nothing new inder the sun.

Direct insults at myself - (I have been called a hypocrite without any justification on this site, and my argument has described as 'crock' ) do not strengthen the case for the existence of God. Most of the 'arguments' returned,and I use that word 'argument' with reservation, have missed the mark. I have even been accused of saying things I haven't said. In many instances my comments have been taken out of context, either deliberately or otherwise. Other arguments posted here have been impressively verbose but generally boil down to empty rhetoric.

I guess you feel very united in trying to destroy any atheists who dare to assert anything at all on this site. I say this as the tone of many of your posts are very hostile. At least I had the inquisitiveness to look around this site and whilst doing so have been accused of being blinkered. I've even been told that I am religious; that everybody is religious in fact. If respecting a method of enquiry is a religion, then the term 'religion' has been so far stretched that the word means nothing.

Well you can keep preaching to one another, the converted, constantly backing one another up with further bogus cases for God's existence. Enjoy the delusion.

Zoegirl - Make sure you stick to the ten commandments fully and rigidly lest you become a hypocrite and make your assertions more clear in any future dealings with atheists.

kopepod wrote:Direct insults at myself - (I have been called a hypocrite without any justification on this site, and my argument has described as 'crock' ) do not strengthen the case for the existence of God. Most of the 'arguments' returned,and I use that word 'argument' with reservation, have missed the mark. I have even been accused of saying things I haven't said. In many instances my comments have been taken out of context, either deliberately or otherwise. Other arguments posted here have been impressively verbose but generally boil down to empty rhetoric.

I guess you feel very united in trying to destroy any atheists who dare to assert anything at all on this site. I say this as the tone of many of your posts are very hostile. At least I had the inquisitiveness to look around this site and whilst doing so have been accused of being blinkered. I've even been told that I am religious; that everybody is religious in fact. If respecting a method of enquiry is a religion, then the term 'religion' has been so far stretched that the word means nothing.

Well you can keep preaching to one another, the converted, constantly backing one another up with further bogus cases for God's existence. Enjoy the delusion.

Zoegirl - Make sure you stick to the ten commandments fully and rigidly lest you become a hypocrite and make your assertions more clear in any future dealings with atheists.

Forgive us, Kopepod, but you just come across as yet another ill-informed atheist; ill-informed not only about religion and faith but your own worldview to boot.

And to back myself up, you obviously have not taken the advice and completely ignored Zoegirl's and others' poiints. Quality! Arguing from a position of ignorance...so typical of atheists.

Legatus wrote:

Gman wrote:Good point... I believe there is no such thing as philosophy free science. Everyone says you can divorce philosophy from science, or that evolution is "neutral" toward science, but if you give completely naturalistic explanations for life then by default you are upholding the naturalistic view. All you have to do is add time, chance, and natural selection as your god and whola, you have your own philosophy/religion.

Actually, this isnt really true...
I believe it is completly possibly to come to the view that there is a God, and from a "naturalistic" perspective, and God agrees, he said so here "Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

I don't think you have understood my point.. If you believe it is completely possible to come to the view that there is a God, and from a "naturalistic" perspective, you are injecting your philosophical views into your science just the same way as an atheist would inject their atheistic views into their science and say their isn't a god. This is all done by looking at the same evidence.. It's just that the perspective has changed.

kopepod wrote:Direct insults at myself - (I have been called a hypocrite without any justification on this site, and my argument has described as 'crock' ) do not strengthen the case for the existence of God. Most of the 'arguments' returned,and I use that word 'argument' with reservation, have missed the mark. I have even been accused of saying things I haven't said. In many instances my comments have been taken out of context, either deliberately or otherwise. Other arguments posted here have been impressively verbose but generally boil down to empty rhetoric.

I guess you feel very united in trying to destroy any atheists who dare to assert anything at all on this site. I say this as the tone of many of your posts are very hostile. At least I had the inquisitiveness to look around this site and whilst doing so have been accused of being blinkered. I've even been told that I am religious; that everybody is religious in fact. If respecting a method of enquiry is a religion, then the term 'religion' has been so far stretched that the word means nothing.

This is not science vs religion, this is a battle between two different fundamental philosophies. Two different world views.

We are religious animals that cannot help but think that something is divine. If you deny the authority of God, that He created all things, you haven’t denied the concept of authority, you simply transfer it to something else like nature or mother nature, etc...

What people are doing with nature is applying personal attributes to it. It’s a personification of nature. We hear in our culture today about nature doing this or nature doing that, acting in some way like mother nature caused a storm today, or an earthquake, etc.. Nature by itself doesn’t do anything.. Nature is impersonal, but humans try to apply their personal attributes to it. It doesn’t mean that that person is not religious, it just means they have a different set of religious presumptions..

Where God is rejected, nature is simply the product of chance and of chaos, there is no purpose, no design plan, we are simply confronted with a world of bruit factuality. And what is bruit factuality? If there is no God there is no design plan, no preexisting relationship between the facts of your experience. You are simply creating an illusion for yourself when you look at the world. There is no real meaning to it but your own. And when you die that meaning is gone forever.

kopepod wrote:Direct insults at myself - (I have been called a hypocrite without any justification on this site, and my argument has described as 'crock' ) do not strengthen the case for the existence of God. Most of the 'arguments' returned,and I use that word 'argument' with reservation, have missed the mark. I have even been accused of saying things I haven't said. In many instances my comments have been taken out of context, either deliberately or otherwise. Other arguments posted here have been impressively verbose but generally boil down to empty rhetoric.

I guess you feel very united in trying to destroy any atheists who dare to assert anything at all on this site. I say this as the tone of many of your posts are very hostile. At least I had the inquisitiveness to look around this site and whilst doing so have been accused of being blinkered. I've even been told that I am religious; that everybody is religious in fact. If respecting a method of enquiry is a religion, then the term 'religion' has been so far stretched that the word means nothing.

Well you can keep preaching to one another, the converted, constantly backing one another up with further bogus cases for God's existence. Enjoy the delusion.

Zoegirl - Make sure you stick to the ten commandments fully and rigidly lest you become a hypocrite and make your assertions more clear in any future dealings with atheists.

Kopepod,

You are absolutely welcome to stay and debate....but so far you haven't even addressed my comments directly. At least tackle my comments about your worldview!

Care to argue and discuss what I have written instead of acting wounded? I am not debating that you are indeed a very nice person and I am not even saying that atheists are not nice or moral. But you haven't responded to the points I have made. All I have stated is that I believe that you are not acting true to your worldview.

Where do you find meaning in a meaningless worldview? Where do you find any justification in proclaiming your nice behavior the proper way to act? In that regard I do say that you are not acting true to your worldview. To say that rape, murder and lying is wrong is certainly the status quo as morality goes but there is no basis for this status quo from an atheist worldview. (mind you let me be very clear that I am not saying that atheists are somehow obligated to be immoral, I am saying that someone that rests upon atheism has no right to proclaim any morality over another).

kopepod wrote:I've even been told that I am religious; that everybody is religious in fact.

It's true though. We have a hard-wired spiritual capacity in our brains, and no one is 'above' that. I think it might also help if you realize that religion and worldview are pretty much the same thing in a lot of cases. What you've suggested is that you're above the influences of your worldview, but what you've demonstrated is that, since you don't acknowledge it in the first place, it affects you more than you know.

You've presented very few arguments for your position and mostly just declared things as facts (you've made sweeping judgments about religion, as one small example). You didn't respond to many of the arguments that were presented either, and the reason you might feel overwhelmed stems from the fact that some of us have heard with or thought about these things before and have positions on them. You made it clear at one point that you even expected that, and you insinuated that it was a bad thing (sorry that I couldn't remember the actual post).

Your problem might be resolved if you 1. Stop trying to act superior to Christians intellectually, and 2. Stop acting like your feelings are hurt when people present the implications of your worldview, that it seems you've ignored, directly to you. If you disagree with our points, address them. But don't make generalizations.

Gman wrote:I don't think you have understood my point.. If you believe it is completely possible to come to the view that there is a God, and from a "naturalistic" perspective, you are injecting your philosophical views into your science just the same way as an atheist would inject their atheistic views into their science and say their isn't a god. This is all done by looking at the same evidence.. It's just that the perspective has changed.

I don't think you understand my point, your belief is irerelivent, as is mine. If I put two things next to two other tings, does it matter if I believe, I mean really BUH-LEEEEVE, that there are four things, for it to actually BE four things? No, of course not, there will be 4 things there whether I believe it or not.


The same is true of the evidence of the natural world, the universe and it's laws, the evidence of life especially at it's first creation, etc. IF you look at it HONESTLY (quite rare actually), you MUST come to the belief that there is a God, just as if you look at two things next to two other things, you must come to the beleif that there are four things. Therefore, IF you were to look at nature with complete honesty, naturalistic view or no, you would have to come to the view that there is a God, and you would even be able to see some of that Gods attributes from what is seen. Prior belief, or lack of belief, is irrelevant, only HONESTY is relevant.


And what did God say to do, to give a REASON for the hope that lies within you. But what do I see here, just a lot of emotional mumbo jumbo. If you are an aethiest, you will have no purpose in life, you will feel bad, so don't be an aethiest. What kind of a REASON is that, just "do it because it feels good"? Do you really think you should just believe something just because it feels good, even if you know it to be wrong? And this reason you give, which is basically, "if your prior belief system were right, you would see it". That is really just saying, you don't beleive because you are a bad, stupid person (unlike wonderfull me, who is a good, smart person). Thus, people who come here with questions feel insulted, and have said so in this thread. And they are right, they ARE being insulted, when you tell them that they simply dont have the right "beleif system" without giving them a REASON to have any other beleif system (you know, facts and stuff). God said in Rom 1:20 that there is an entire world, nay, an entire UNIVERSE, chock full of facts, REASONS, you could give them, as he commanded you to give them. Are you going to do it?


So if people come here with questions, and you don't give them REASONS for the hope that is in you, you need to ask yourself, do you even have any reasons? Are you afraid to look at honest science, the natural world, because you are afraid it will challenge your faith? Do you really take Gods word in Rom 1:20 at face value, and see that the facts of this natural world will not challenge your beleif, if you look at the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts (thus leaving out speculation)?


And as for "world view" or "philosophical view" being nessissary to come to a correct conclusion, that has been shown by history to be not true. To start with, the apostle Paul had a very definate world view, and he did not come to beleif because he first changed his world view, he came to beleif because a FACT stared him in the face, litterally. And he is not the only one. There is a book, called Evidence That demands a Verdict, written by someone who was quite sure that this christianity stuff was all a lot of nonsense. But his students challenged him to look at the FACTS, honestly, and, being that he was the worlds formost expert on legal facts, he did. He came to the conclusion that all that christianity stuff was, indeed, true, not because of his prior beleif system, which was completly apposed to it, but because he saw the FACTS.


This idea that prior world view needs to change first is, in fact, identical to a major religious beleif currently around, which states 'whatever you want to beleive" and "if you are really sincere". They beleive that if you believe, really BUH-LEEEVE something, like that you will go to nirvana, why, then you will, and if you beleive that there is no God, then there isn't. But that latter is really saying (1) There is no God, and (2) and I know it, because I am God. Things can only be true just because I beleive them if it is my beleif that makes them true, which can only happen if I am God and my beleif MAKES them true. The reality is that your beleif, or world view, changes nothing. Facts are facts, they don't care if you beleive them or not.

In short, your beleif is irrelevant. If someone comes here saying "I'm an atheist" and asks for REASONS to change his mind, try something new, ANSWERS.

Other arguments posted here have been impressively verbose but generally boil down to empty rhetoric.

If anyone is making these assertions about you, then they should stop. That isn't to say that you should cry foul when you have your worldview challenged. I've seen a lot more reason and logic than I have rhetoric. And I can't help but notice that you simply whistle past the logical challenges that have been posited, and ignore when your own logical fallacies are spelled out for you.

Legatus wrote:I don't think you understand my point, your belief is irerelivent, as is mine. If I put two things next to two other tings, does it matter if I believe, I mean really BUH-LEEEEVE, that there are four things, for it to actually BE four things? No, of course not, there will be 4 things there whether I believe it or not.

The same is true of the evidence of the natural world, the universe and it's laws, the evidence of life especially at it's first creation, etc. IF you look at it HONESTLY (quite rare actually), you MUST come to the belief that there is a God, just as if you look at two things next to two other things, you must come to the beleif that there are four things. Therefore, IF you were to look at nature with complete honesty, naturalistic view or no, you would have to come to the view that there is a God, and you would even be able to see some of that Gods attributes from what is seen. Prior belief, or lack of belief, is irrelevant, only HONESTY is relevant.

Legatus.. I see your point, but you are still missing my point. When I speak of a philosophical view, I'm speaking of a view that is attributed to an object. However, an object by itself is theoretically neutral to a scientific view. Example. A rock. A rock is technically what is it, a rock. It holds no scientific viewpoint. Scientifically a rock is a solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids.. However, in my philosophical viewpoint, I can also look at a rock and say, gee, a rock, that came from God. Whereas an atheists looks at that same rock and says, gee, that rock came by chance with no God. Either way I'm injecting my philosophical viewpoint into it..

Get it now?

Legatus wrote:And what did God say to do, to give a REASON for the hope that lies within you. But what do I see here, just a lot of emotional mumbo jumbo. If you are an aethiest, you will have no purpose in life, you will feel bad, so don't be an aethiest. What kind of a REASON is that, just "do it because it feels good"? Do you really think you should just believe something just because it feels good, even if you know it to be wrong? And this reason you give, which is basically, "if your prior belief system were right, you would see it". That is really just saying, you don't beleive because you are a bad, stupid person (unlike wonderfull me, who is a good, smart person). Thus, people who come here with questions feel insulted, and have said so in this thread. And they are right, they ARE being insulted, when you tell them that they simply dont have the right "beleif system" without giving them a REASON to have any other beleif system (you know, facts and stuff). God said in Rom 1:20 that there is an entire world, nay, an entire UNIVERSE, chock full of facts, REASONS, you could give them, as he commanded you to give them. Are you going to do it?

So if people come here with questions, and you don't give them REASONS for the hope that is in you, you need to ask yourself, do you even have any reasons? Are you afraid to look at honest science, the natural world, because you are afraid it will challenge your faith? Do you really take Gods word in Rom 1:20 at face value, and see that the facts of this natural world will not challenge your beleif, if you look at the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts (thus leaving out speculation)?

And as for "world view" or "philosophical view" being nessissary to come to a correct conclusion, that has been shown by history to be not true. To start with, the apostle Paul had a very definate world view, and he did not come to beleif because he first changed his world view, he came to beleif because a FACT stared him in the face, litterally. And he is not the only one. There is a book, called Evidence That demands a Verdict, written by someone who was quite sure that this christianity stuff was all a lot of nonsense. But his students challenged him to look at the FACTS, honestly, and, being that he was the worlds formost expert on legal facts, he did. He came to the conclusion that all that christianity stuff was, indeed, true, not because of his prior beleif system, which was completly apposed to it, but because he saw the FACTS.

This idea that prior world view needs to change first is, in fact, identical to a major religious beleif currently around, which states 'whatever you want to beleive" and "if you are really sincere". They beleive that if you believe, really BUH-LEEEVE something, like that you will go to nirvana, why, then you will, and if you beleive that there is no God, then there isn't. But that latter is really saying (1) There is no God, and (2) and I know it, because I am God. Things can only be true just because I beleive them if it is my beleif that makes them true, which can only happen if I am God and my beleif MAKES them true. The reality is that your beleif, or world view, changes nothing. Facts are facts, they don't care if you beleive them or not.

In short, your beleif is irrelevant. If someone comes here saying "I'm an atheist" and asks for REASONS to change his mind, try something new, ANSWERS.

I have no clue why you are writing this only that you are trying to expound on your philosophical viewpoints.. Which we could say is your reality. However, that reality is a TRUE reality based on the word of God. Either way its what I'm attributing to an object that scientifically carries no viewpoint at all. It simply exists..