Evidence for God from Science

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/Submit
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

In short, metaphysics is the philosophy of physics ( and science).

This is a decent ( starting) definition:
Metaphysics
I, as a philosophy major who actually studies this stuff, will post a real definition for metaphysics since many definitions are [nonsense] for the most part.

There are two kinds of metaphysics:
-General metaphysics (universal)
-Special metaphysics (particular)

General metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality as in the big picture of reality and is done empirically by most contemporary philosophers. Items of study in general metaphysics are categories, universals, attributes etc. This is not necessarily the study of any afterlife or upper reality; that subject is a matter of special metaphysics. Universals by D.M. Armstrong is a good example of what general metaphysics is.

Special metaphysics has potentially an infinite number of sub branches, each studying one particular subject. One such subject may be ghosts and spirits but most contemporary philosophers don't take this particular subject mater seriously. Topics that are taken seriously are philosophy of mind and psychology, personal identity, and aesthetics.

Unlike physics which studies concrete objects, metaphysics studies abstract objects like mathematics, logic etc.
1. In a hypothetical situation:

Ray Comfort: I call my paranormal investigation metaphysics to sound scientific.

Me: Most metaphysicians don't take your definition seriously.

2. General metaphysics

Do two red blocks share a universal property of the color red or do they have their own instance of having the color red? That is to ask is there a universal thing called "the property red" that exists in more than one place at one time or is there no such thing?

3. Special metaphysics (personal identity):
Is a fetus identical to a person in the future? If so then the fetus is a person. If not then it is not a person.

Sounds interesting.

Philip wrote:

TrulyE: Finally, your continued chanting of creationist dogma as mantras for absolute truth, only demonstrates a new level of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance.

Ah, but only if what I assert is not true is it dishonest. And you have massive problems of explaining what came into existence, if not by some immensely powerful intelligence, if instead by blind things that didn't previously exist. Or even energy - which isn't an intelligence. So, SOMETHING with massively intelligence, incredibly powerful capabilities existed. But you just don't know what that "thing" is.

TrulyE: Asking me to only answer questions in such a way to prove your own belief assertions, is deceptive, manipulative, and dishonest.

Truly, how else is on to ask the questions that matter - even if highly inconvenient to your beliefs?

TrulyE: And, since any answers using "design'' was off the table, so would be any "metaphysical" answer. By stating, "you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things", you are simply being deceptive.

HOW is that deceptive??? No, it's a direct and obvious question, because massively complex designs and engineering so they could precisely obey laws AND be perfectly interactive, are all impossible without intelligence. You don't like the questions because you don't have an answer. Truly, I'm a rationalist - I don't believe the impossible, the never observed, can occur. You do, apparently.

Look, this is not a adversarial thing for me - it's a quest for truth. And I want you to discover it! But PHYSICAL answers will get you absolutely nowhere.

Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.

You are correct, NO ONE knows for certain the cause of the BB. NO ONE! There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation. But based on the evidence, we DO KNOW what happened after the BB. Since all science is limited or breaks down just before the singularity(below Planck's Constant), it may be impossible for science to determine the exact composition and nature of this singularity, from a 4-dimensional perspective. However, based on the outcome of the new research at CERN, regarding its understanding and discovery of the nature of the Graviton, we may begin to understand our Universe from a new perspective. It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality. But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?

What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest. Since you requested that my answers be formed only to justify your claims(assertions), this can only be construed as being manipulative and arrogant. It has nothing to do with being inconvenient. By trying to censor my responses, you expose your unwillingness to accept your burden of proof. It should be clear to you that, although I have my own spiritual beliefs, I do not share in your belief that any metaphysical, supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal manifestation of all thoughts and actions, created my reality. But I am willing to follow any fallacy-free evidence, to wherever it may lead. I am not a presuppositionalist, who try and make the evidence fit their supposition.

My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions. I will agree that I don't see us as adversaries. But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs. This may handicap your ability to critically and objectively evaluate the merits of any constructive and honest inquiry. Although it is my religious upbringing that provides me with the path for emotional and social enlightenment, but it is my science upbringing that provides me the path for intellectual security. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving both. I do not try to label you, so I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating. Atheist merely don't see any evidence that can, in any way, support the belief that a God(s) exists. Maybe you can be the first to provide such evidence? Other than this position, they have as many varied beliefs and opinions as you do. Don

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally, the way many atheists think/describe/view god is so far removed from the classical theist view ( see Aquinas) that it doesn't surprise me that they see no rational reasonable way to believe in god.

Other than simply editorializing, maybe you can compare or contrast the evidence(or lack there of) that can supports a rational disbelief in the existence of God(s), and any objective and God-specific evidence that supports the existence of a God(s)? Finding evidence for a reasonable or rational reason to believe in a God(s), only begs the question that a God(s) exist in the first place.
Don

PaulSacramento wrote:

My problem with all supernatural or metaphysical arguments, is that it would be much easier to simply state that we just don't know. Then to give the perception that we do. Don

Enter "Brute facts", which are no explanation at all and the "god of the gaps" of non-believers.

Metaphysics address that WHY's.

Sorry, still far to cryptic for me. "Brute facts"? "God of the gaps" for non-believer? Don

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:...limited to the metaphysical or the make-believe...

To equate metaphysics with make-believe (may or may not be your intention but that's how I read it) is to equate cosmology with astrology.

FYI, philosophy in general (and metaphysics in particular) is the bedrock of logic and reason, without which there is no science.

I meant no disrespect. I only meant that MY answer would be made up if it was a metaphysical answer. Not that the metaphysical is make-believe. I totally disagree that science would not exist without the inclusion of philosophy or the metaphysical. Maybe you can demonstrate the causal link for this direct dependency? Don

trulyenlightened wrote:What do you think the probability/chance of all these events happening, JUST TO PRODUCE YOU would be? Regardless of the astronomical improbability of these events ever happening, THEY DID IN FACT HAPPEN!

We are all very special and unique, without appealing to the supernatural for credit. We are the product of millions of years of evolution, and trial and error(99% extinct species), and parents that are survivors. DNA is NOT a code, it is a molecule. Protein synthesis and other biochemical processes are not biological designs, they are biophysical cellular functions, that are certainly not perfect(disease, mutations, ageing, etc.). No one KNOWS what the universe was like before Planck Time! We simply do not know WHY or HOW the universe began. But assigning it a supernatural explanation, will only raise more questions than answers. So again, if this is only your belief, so be it. Otherwise, it is what it is. Don

God created the heavens and the earth. God created all known and unknown universes. God created all phyiscal and spiritual dimensons of eternity time and space. All. This is common sense. Evidenced by common observation. You see it the moment you step outside a anywhere in the world. Common sense. Anyone can see it. Atheists included. Atheists choose to live in a perpetual state of denial and spiritual rebellion against what they know to be true. God is cleary seen and obvious.

All things occur through Gods will. Human scientific advancments are constantly evolving. DNA is a program. A code. The fact it's a "molecule" is here nor there. DNA being an organic molecule doesn't prove it's not a program or code. Which it is. Everything on this earth is comprised of elements and molecules.

The science your alluding to which statistically proves the chances of you or I existing is on earth is zero - is further proof of Gods design. The hubble telescope - obvious proof. New discoveries in particle tubes - obvious proof. Deep sea discoveries - obvious proof. None of these discoveries disprove God's existance by proving we came from nothingness. All these discoveries are fruther proof of God's creation. Every high resolution deep space photo of every solar system is further obvious evidence of God.

You may find it interesting (or not) the Static earth theory, at one time in scientific history, was THE absolute correct theory on the formation of the universe championed by scientific atheism. God did not create the universe, they said, because it was already here! The static universe theory proves it! Until the big bang theory proved them wrong. The big bamg theory was resisted by athetists of the time because it alluded to God producing the universe from NOTHING. Atheists resisted until they were forced to accept the big bang theory by thier own scientific standards.

Atheists are amusing to me. Deep down inside these people belive in God ...while they shake thier fist at the sky yelling he doesn't exist. Atheists live live in state of perpetual denial. It's almost comedic (almost). Look at all the famous atheists like Christopher Hitchens who begged and cried to God for mercy at the end on thier deathbeds. Ha ha ha. Because the truth, whats in the mind, heart and spirit, always comes out in the end.

Radio show host Tom Leykis is another famous atheist I've got my eye on. Rich, massivley overweight, 60 year old, gluttonus, alcoholic. Hosted a weekly show called "ask the atheist" for decades he would encourage callers to call into his radio show, and agree or deabte - so he could get his weekly dose of denying God out of his system. When he dies (if it's not all at once) he's gonna break just like the rest. He's gonna cry and beg and plead to God for mercy on his deahtbed, because deep deep down inside, these types of people KNOW God exists. God put his spirit of eternity in all of us.

Too bad they don't have a website that takes these kinds of bets on this kind of stuff ..

TrulyE: There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation.

Of course we do, because what immediately came into existence and how those first amazing things functioned require an intelligent designer - as just random things pointlessly bumping into each other didn't appear, but things with awesome designs and functionality, operating with great precision, obeying complex laws, and a directional purpose. These are all the hallmarks of an incredible intelligence, able to operate with great power and on a scale that was breathtaking to consider. So, you're back to re-enforcing your illogical belief in what blind, random things can accomplish - not the least trick is to jump from a non-physical state to a physical one, immediately. Your belief not only takes immense faith, but also is illogical, as we have ZERO examples of non-intelligent things showing such capabilities, anywhere in the universe - just popping into existence, uncaused, unguided, etc.

TrulyE: It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality.

Maybe you don't - but you DO know that something with those characteristics necessarily existed, from what was instantly created.

TrulyE: But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?

I'm not sure what you are referring to - perhaps other religions - but none compare to Christianity. Obviously, none of the pantheistic religions are true - because the universe could not create itself. If the universe once did not exist, and now it does, the universe, us, all material things, could not in totality make up God.

TrulyE: What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.

OK, so you admit that what I assert "may" be true. But in the breath say I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one who thinks unfathomable designs and functionality can pop into existence, uncaused, without some grand intelligence. Are you smarter than Einstein - he got it - he immediately realized the implications of the universe having a beginning. And he spoke of it as "god" - but not "God."

TrulyE: By trying to censor my responses...

That's a debating tactic - instead, I've merely asked you questions, and how certain things are possible. You don't have an answer to that and so you lash out. HOW have I censored you - that's not credible.

TrulyE: My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions.

Oh, but it might well be relevant. Besides, what is there to hide or be secret about? I will answer anything you ask about my spiritual journey, my testing of the very same questions you have - but over 40 years ago, and intensely so.

TrulyE: But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs.

I was raised to faith from childhood - but in my later teens, I questioned it all - nearly rejected it, for many of the things I mistakenly had begun to think truly challenged it. My closest friend was an atheist - and he challenged me greatly to see what I truly believed. So, yours is a very old story to me, your kicking up very familiar and ancient ground for me. There will not be one objection to theism or Christianity I've not encountered or deeply considered. Every year, we on the forum see people with your views show up - and what we see over and over are the very same false beliefs that have no supportable basis. But your saying you just don't know, but then also asserting you DO know what preceded the physical universe couldn't possibly be God - that's a contradiction in thinking.

TrulyE: I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating.

You have me confused with someone else. One of my oldest friends is agnostic, some of my closed friends have been or are atheists. Where did I ever accuse you of being immoral or self-centered. I'm sure you may be a nice fellow, caring of your fellow man - maybe much more than me. You are not asserting a stereotype of Christians and projecting it upon me - who has only asked you direct questions. Please don't accuse me of what I've not done. But please indicate how I've called you immoral, etc. - I'm open to being shown how.

Since your default position is to invoke answers from the metaphysical or supernatural realm, any evidence presented will be factless and subjective. There are NO absolute wrong interpretations, or no absolute right interpretations. There is no evidence(other than definition) that proves either exist. Even if they did exist, it could not be demonstrated that they have any practical or materialistic value. I also don't see the relevance of this line of inquiry as it relates to the OP. Based on the OP, I would expect to see a list of amazing scientific evidence, and can decide if they support the existence of a God(s). Or, was I simply being naive to expect this? If you simply want to engage in an abstract philosophical or metaphysical argument, then it would only end as an intellectual exercise in futility. This is because no answer can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Let's try this argument for example;

You will agree that we all have physical senses that interface us with our objective reality, right? These senses allow us to be aware of, and interact with our objective reality. Now the most simplest question I can ask is, are our senses perfect, or can they sense everything? The answer is obviously NO! As we age, do our senses become less accurate and reliable, than in our early years? The answer is less accurate and less reliable as we age. You would also agree that without our senses, from a subjective perspective, our objective reality can't exist? In essence, we are completely trapped within the reality our senses can perceive. Since our brain can only interpret the information from the senses in a closed loop, its representation of reality can't be complete or perfect. In other words, the brain can at best present only its best guess representation of reality. Remember, there is no real color, music, taste, smells, or touch. There is only electromagnetic radiation(white light), sound wave compression, and a few molecules interpreted as being a specific taste or a specific scent. Even the sensation of touch is interpreted by the compression of a specific nerve ending. These ideas can easily be confirmed by simply removing each sense. Losing one's sense, will also remove a portion of one's subjective reality. Losing all of one's senses, would mean losing all connection with subjective reality. Therefore, from this perspective reality does not exist. Let's move on.

Since we can't attach our mind and nervous system to another mind, reality will always be experienced and seen from a subjective perspective, and only limited by the range of our senses. When we die, this perspective must transfer, or exist in another's perspective. Otherwise there cannot be any subjective perspective to perceive the existence of an objective reality. I call this a "universal subjective consciousness". It is similar to energy, in that it can not be created or destroyed. It must always be maintained, otherwise no conscious perception of reality can be possible. Now have I proved that a "universal subjective consciousness" exists, or have I disproved it? Don

trulyenlightened wrote:
Since your default position is to invoke answers from the metaphysical or supernatural realm, any evidence presented will be factless and subjective. There are NO absolute wrong interpretations, or no absolute right interpretations. There is no evidence(other than definition) that proves either exist. Even if they did exist, it could not be demonstrated that they have any practical or materialistic value. I also don't see the relevance of this line of inquiry as it relates to the OP. Based on the OP, I would expect to see a list of amazing scientific evidence, and can decide if they support the existence of a God(s). Or, was I simply being naive to expect this? If you simply want to engage in an abstract philosophical or metaphysical argument, then it would only end as an intellectual exercise in futility. This is because no answer can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Let's try this argument for example;

Philip's entire original post is scientific evidence. You can decide for yourself, if you choose to believe that the evidence points to God.

Rick: Philip's entire original post is scientific evidence. You can decide for yourself, if you choose to believe that the evidence points to God.

Or you can believe that the many, individually astounding things on that list just appeared by pure, random chance, without any intelligence necessary - despite the fact that everything on that list, especially when factored together, when considered that they ALL must be working together to make this present reality possible, checks every possible box that shows those things needs an intelligence behind them.

TrulyE: You would also agree that without our senses, from a subjective perspective, our objective reality can't exist? In essence, we are completely trapped within the reality our senses can perceive. Since our brain can only interpret the information from the senses in a closed loop, its representation of reality can't be complete or perfect.

Ah, but COLLECTIVELY, across the senses of all normal brains, we see massive corellations in our interpretations of reality - particualarly concerning the scientific evidences. The scientific data shows a universe with razor sharp parameters and all things obeying specific laws, showing consistent outcomes and behaviors. In fact, the correlations of our collective observations show a universe and planet that operates very predictably, even if we don't know everything yet. Because, with what we DO collectively observe, the consistency of things is the ONLY reason we can find many correlations per the scientific method. We don't see randomness everywhere, in results and processes - we see enormous predictability that we have long tried to understand. We see consistency in observable things that doesn't constantly vary, nor does the observations of such data constantly vary, according to the subjective viewer. CAUSES and the "how" of processes are debated, but as to the data all scientists see, there is astoundingly remarkable consistence. How does randomness of causes correlate on such an immense scale, as that testing and research shows great consistency, throughout time, and no matter the researcher? So, are these massively agreed-upon perceptions of correlating data mere illusions of individual subjectivity, yet on a galactic scale???

TrulyE: Losing all of one's senses, would mean losing all connection with subjective reality.

But that is not the reality, is it? As most of us have ALL of our senses - and they massively correlate with what they are telling us. We all watch a movie - if carefully viewed by all - ALL see the same things going on in each scene. We don't see a zillion variations of people observed - how is that possible, if all our senses are merely subjective? Why even have an opinion, if the points you would like to make are merely subjective, and inapplicable to anything more than one's own sense of things?

So, we don't see complete randomness - even if there is some randomness within the possible parameters of how things and systems function - they are still bracketed by inescapable parameters. If everything is subjective, and people are all different, how is it we are seeing massive correlations that we all can agree upon? From the very beginning of the BB, we don't see complete randomness and chaos, but direction, obedience to laws (laws don't create themselves), great harmony in how things and systems work together - both on a macro level, but also within systems and organisms. If reality is but subjective, no science could take place.

Obviously, Truly, what you assert to be true - you've used your version of reality to assert it. But if your black is only my white - maybe next week it's red, etc., etc., all viewpoints, perceptions, etc., basically become meaningless. Ah, but we live our lives as if we THINK we can make sense of things. The entire world seems to think that basic morality of what is right and what is evil, are the very same things. How is that, if reality is only subjective? Else, one man thinks murder a great evil - another sees it as the ultimate expression of love. These are the kinds of things your questioning of reality and perceptions lead us - but the realities we all overwhelmingly agree upon negate this viewpoint. But at the heart of it, would appear your desire to deny the obvious characteristics of the first moments of the universe, all it became, and what the characteristics of Some eternal force would be required to create it. So, it appears that you are attempting to deny that by asserting it's all merely a matter of perception. Because if you believe that, you'll never accept ANYTHING as definitive truth.

Blessed wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:What do you think the probability/chance of all these events happening, JUST TO PRODUCE YOU would be? Regardless of the astronomical improbability of these events ever happening, THEY DID IN FACT HAPPEN!

We are all very special and unique, without appealing to the supernatural for credit. We are the product of millions of years of evolution, and trial and error(99% extinct species), and parents that are survivors. DNA is NOT a code, it is a molecule. Protein synthesis and other biochemical processes are not biological designs, they are biophysical cellular functions, that are certainly not perfect(disease, mutations, ageing, etc.). No one KNOWS what the universe was like before Planck Time! We simply do not know WHY or HOW the universe began. But assigning it a supernatural explanation, will only raise more questions than answers. So again, if this is only your belief, so be it. Otherwise, it is what it is. Don

God created the heavens and the earth. God created all known and unknown universes. God created all phyiscal and spiritual dimensons of eternity time and space. All. This is common sense. Evidenced by common observation. You see it the moment you step outside a anywhere in the world. Common sense. Anyone can see it. Atheists included. Atheists choose to live in a perpetual state of denial and spiritual rebellion against what they know to be true. God is cleary seen and obvious.

All things occur through Gods will. Human scientific advancments are constantly evolving. DNA is a program. A code. The fact it's a "molecule" is here nor there. DNA being an organic molecule doesn't prove it's not a program or code. Which it is. Everything on this earth is comprised of elements and molecules.

The science your alluding to which statistically proves the chances of you or I existing is on earth is zero - is further proof of Gods design. The hubble telescope - obvious proof. New discoveries in particle tubes - obvious proof. Deep sea discoveries - obvious proof. None of these discoveries disprove God's existance by proving we came from nothingness. All these discoveries are fruther proof of God's creation. Every high resolution deep space photo of every solar system is further obvious evidence of God.

You may find it interesting (or not) the Static earth theory, at one time in scientific history, was THE absolute correct theory on the formation of the universe championed by scientific atheism. God did not create the universe, they said, because it was already here! The static universe theory proves it! Until the big bang theory proved them wrong. The big bamg theory was resisted by athetists of the time because it alluded to God producing the universe from NOTHING. Atheists resisted until they were forced to accept the big bang theory by thier own scientific standards.

Atheists are amusing to me. Deep down inside these people belive in God ...while they shake thier fist at the sky yelling he doesn't exist. Atheists live live in state of perpetual denial. It's almost comedic (almost). Look at all the famous atheists like Christopher Hitchens who begged and cried to God for mercy at the end on thier deathbeds. Ha ha ha. Because the truth, whats in the mind, heart and spirit, always comes out in the end.

Radio show host Tom Leykis is another famous atheist I've got my eye on. Rich, massivley overweight, 60 year old, gluttonus, alcoholic. Hosted a weekly show called "ask the atheist" for decades he would encourage callers to call into his radio show, and agree or deabte - so he could get his weekly dose of denying God out of his system. When he dies (if it's not all at once) he's gonna break just like the rest. He's gonna cry and beg and plead to God for mercy on his deahtbed, because deep deep down inside, these types of people KNOW God exists. God put his spirit of eternity in all of us.

Too bad they don't have a website that takes these kinds of bets on this kind of stuff ..

Christopher Hitchens was resolute in his position on the existence of God, even at his deathbed. He was also a personal friend of mine, and saw Christianity as a social virus that contributed to the, "dumbing down" of America. What you are claiming is a blatant and insensitive LIE. He never cried or begged for mercy from God or anyone else. And even if these imagined deathbed conversions were real, they could hardly be seen as a victory for Christ(only His failure). In fact, stories in which the final pain of a fatal disease, or the fear of imminent death and eternal punishment, is also identified as the factor necessary for otherwise rational people to believe in the supernatural. How "blessed" is it, for some indoctrinated closed minded, one-dimensional zealot, to glibly express some distorted type of pleasure, from the suffering and death of someone with a different ideology? Or even gleefully anticipated the death of another unbeliever. I sincerely hope that you do not represent the emotional extension of any religious teachings. You are the perfect example of why rational people fear any direct religiosity in our schools, our governments, or our courts. It breeds insensitivity, exclusionism, elitism, bigotry, and separatism from those with different ideologies. Unlike you, I have more empathy and compassion for all beliefs and people from all walks of life. If you are an example of the kind of person that will go to heaven, then I choose to go in the other direction. You seem to forget that death awaits us all, regardless of our ideologies. It is irrelevant what happens afterwards.

Since all that you know is your indoctrinated belief, then you really don't know anything for certain. You merely BELIEVE that you know. If you wish to label everything that exist, everything that have existed, or everything that will exist as God, then you have demonstrated your level of critical and independent thinking, or any ability to excel in future knowledge. In order to demonstrate God's creations with absolute certainty, you would need to be a god, or totally delusional. Many ideas in science have changed over the years as new knowledge is discovered, so what was your point?

You obviously know nothing about Atheism, if you think they are all simply in denial. When the King walked out without clothes on, it was the little girl that thought everyone else was in denial. What is truly amusing to Atheist, is how can any grown mature adult believe in a talking snake or a talking donkey(Balaam's). It is also amusing that grown adults would dedicate their lives to pious servitude, because of an ancient foreign man-made, man-compiled(Emperor Constantine), man-written, man-contracted(Emperor Constantine), and man-edited book, written to consolidate all the religions in the region, and control the minds of Bronze Age sheep and goat herders and their children. Now that would be amusing, if I was as insensitive as you are.

I do not prefer having any further conversation with you. Don

Don: It is also amusing that grown adults would dedicate their lives to pious servitude, because of an ancient foreign man-made, man-compiled(Emperor Constantine), man-written, man-contracted(Emperor Constantine), and man-edited book, written to consolidate all the religions in the region, and control the minds of Bronze Age sheep and goat herders and their children. Now that would be amusing, if I was as insensitive as you are.

Don, hate to tell you, but that is a massively ignorant statement to make - you clearly don't know the accurate history of Christianity - especially the history that preceded Constantine.

Don,

Why are you here on this forum?