Evidence for God from Science

Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

Ken

At best you can have anthropological studies that show that through history Man has believed in things "supernatural".

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to "convictions".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

Ken

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to "convictions".

Which makes my point.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Here is where I disagree with you.

Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Does not mean ALL humans, it just means when a human has a deep conviction of concepts to do with God, it is natural. It does not mean it is unnatural for a human to not have these convictions.

Consider the statement,

It is natural for a person to want what they can’t have.

Does this mean if a person is content with what he has there is something wrong with him? No! I like the way Paulsacramento put it;

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to “convictions”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Here is where I disagree with you.

Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Does not mean ALL humans, it just means when a human has a deep conviction of concepts to do with God, it is natural. It does not mean it is unnatural for a human to not have these convictions.

Yes, it does mean that.

Consider those who not having any moral compass, where raping and murdering children is just as "good" as not. Either way, it means nothing to them to say such conduct is right or wrong. They just don't get it, and so go with their "natural" inclination like say an animal would. But, clearly, something that sets humans apart from animals, even if you consider humans mere animals, is our being highly rational and moral creatures.

What would we say of psychopaths -- is the natural human predisposition to be without any moral compass, or are humans naturally moral creatures? I ask you, what do the scientific studies say...?

Kenny wrote:Consider the statement,

It is natural for a person to want what they can’t have.

Does this mean if a person is content with what he has there is something wrong with him? No! I like the way Paulsacramento put it;

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to “convictions”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

What it means is that someone who differs from their natural predisposition, they have for whatever reason walked away from such as they developed in life. Comes back the "nature" or "nurture", and it seems while one might have a nature with this and that, that such can be nurtured out of them.

As for PaulS, I have a feeling he had something different in mind to you, or else I say he is clearly wrong.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Here is where I disagree with you.

Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Does not mean ALL humans, it just means when a human has a deep conviction of concepts to do with God, it is natural. It does not mean it is unnatural for a human to not have these convictions.

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, it does mean that.

Consider those who not having any moral compass, where raping and murdering children is just as "good" as not. Either way, it means nothing to them to say such conduct is right or wrong. They just don't get it, and so go with their "natural" inclination like say an animal would. But, clearly, something that sets humans apart from animals, even if you consider humans mere animals, is our being highly rational and moral creatures.

What would we say of psychopaths -- is the natural human predisposition to be without any moral compass, or are humans naturally moral creatures? I ask you, what do the scientific studies say...?

To not have moral convictions associated with God does not equal no moral compass at all. Your example is flawed.

Kenny wrote:Consider the statement,

It is natural for a person to want what they can’t have.

Does this mean if a person is content with what he has there is something wrong with him? No! I like the way Paulsacramento put it;

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to “convictions”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

Kurieuo wrote: What it means is that someone who differs from their natural predisposition, they have for whatever reason walked away from such as they developed in life. Comes back the "nature" or "nurture", and it seems while one might have a nature with this and that, that such can be nurtured out of them.

As for PaulS, I have a feeling he had something different in mind to you, or else I say he is clearly wrong.

If PaulS were wrong, you would have been able to point out an example of something from science that states there is something unnatural for humans to not have deep convictions associated with God, by now.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Here is where I disagree with you.

Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Does not mean ALL humans, it just means when a human has a deep conviction of concepts to do with God, it is natural. It does not mean it is unnatural for a human to not have these convictions.

Yes, it does mean that.

Consider those who not having any moral compass, where raping and murdering children is just as "good" as not. Either way, it means nothing to them to say such conduct is right or wrong. They just don't get it, and so go with their "natural" inclination like say an animal would. But, clearly, something that sets humans apart from animals, even if you consider humans mere animals, is our being highly rational and moral creatures.

What would we say of psychopaths -- is the natural human predisposition to be without any moral compass, or are humans naturally moral creatures? I ask you, what do the scientific studies say...?

To not have moral convictions associated with God does not equal no moral compass at all. Your example is flawed.

Are you stating that humans can only naturally possess a sense of right and wrong if God exists, that humans are not naturally moral creatures?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Consider the statement,

It is natural for a person to want what they can’t have.

Does this mean if a person is content with what he has there is something wrong with him? No! I like the way Paulsacramento put it;

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to “convictions”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

What it means is that someone who differs from their natural predisposition, they have for whatever reason walked away from such as they developed in life. Comes back the "nature" or "nurture", and it seems while one might have a nature with this and that, that such can be nurtured out of them.

As for PaulS, I have a feeling he had something different in mind to you, or else I say he is clearly wrong.

If PaulS were wrong, you would have been able to point out an example of something from science that states there is something unnatural for humans to not have deep convictions associated with God, by now.

I never said PaulS was wrong, rather likely your understanding of him. Given there is an area called, "Cognitive Science of Religion", clearly many do believe science can shed light on our natural cognitive disposition.

Studies and those responsible for them were previously pointed out here. To re-quote:

The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”. “We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies...

This gets us to:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

which is the logical equivalent of:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Perhaps you're misunderstanding what is here meant by "natural" and "unnatural", so I elaborated on this more clearly in my second last post.

Otherwise, I see that I've lead you to the water Kenny, but it's not up to me to make you drink if you don't want to (I'm not talking about leading you to "God belief", but rather the topic at hand). Here are some other "wells" to help get you started with the studies out there:

Rebekah A. Richert and Justin L. Barrett, "Do You See What I See? Young Children's Assumptions About God's Perceptual Abilities," The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.

Traditionally, the development of children’s understanding of God has been described as anthropomorphic. In other words, that the starting point for children’s concept of God is that of a parent or “superhuman” in the sky. In terms of cognitive development specifically, the Piagetian notion that the term God is equivalent to a “big person” for a young child echoes throughout historical literature on children’s religious concepts (Paloutzian, 1996). This paper challenges this traditional cognitive explanation of the development of God concepts and proposes that even young children may not be limited to an anthropomorphic understanding of God. Instead, we offer support for a recent hypothesis that children may be cognitively “prepared” to differentially understand both humans and God.

Paul Bloom, "Religion is natural," Developmental Science

Despite its considerable intellectual interest and great social relevance, religion has been neglected by contemporary developmental psychologists. But in the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief – belief in mind–body dualism, and belief in divine agents – come naturally to young children. This research is briefly reviewed, and some future directions are discussed.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:...Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

Atheism...

Darwinism...

Marxism...
-
-
-

Those aren't scientific studies, they are just labels theists have given to various people who think differently than them.

Ken

Sorry these all claim science as their root of their belief system which is Darwinism and Darwinism is the foundation stone for modern science of evolution and all the experiments done to support it in many fields of science, behaviorism, political thought and all deny God existence.

What science do you use, Kenny, to deny God? Are you saying such denial is unnatural? Of so, there is hope for you yet!
-
-
-

Non-belief is just based on the person's opinion without any evidence to back it up.Even false religions have more evidence than nonbelievers do.Nonbelievers have nothing to bring to the argument except their opinion they prop up above all other views.It is a no win gamble they play with themselves rejecting God based on an opinion they have absolutely no evidence behind.They lose big time if they are wrong after they die,while believers in the true God have nothing to lose if they were somehow wrong and yet if they are right receive rewards that will be well worth anything we went through in this life.Nonbelievers seem like smart intelligent people yet are willing to play a game they cannot win based on the odds and what happens if they are wrong after they die,especially when Jesus made salvation so easy and they could be saved.Just because they don't know which is the true God and how to tell is no excuse for such a poor choice to make to live by.Jesus is so much more awesome and better than any of other god's people believe in and he's the only God that came to this earth as a human to save us also.None of the other god's are concerned about sin and if you were to go to their heaven? It would be no different than this world but our God is Holy which is why no sin can be in his precense or enter heaven.So it is the only heaven worth wanting to go to.

Hosanna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at5nDazjNKA

abelcainsbrother wrote:Non-belief is just based on the person's opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Have you interviewed or even spoken to all non-believers? No. Thus you are not qualified to speak on behalf of others you know nothing about

Ken

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:...Can you present any scientific studies that show it is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism? I think not.

Atheism...

Darwinism...

Marxism...
-
-
-

Those aren't scientific studies, they are just labels theists have given to various people who think differently than them.

Ken

Sorry these all claim science as their root of their belief system which is Darwinism and Darwinism is the foundation stone for modern science of evolution and all the experiments done to support it in many fields of science, behaviorism, political thought and all deny God existence.

What science do you use, Kenny, to deny God? Are you saying such denial is unnatural? Of so, there is hope for you yet!
-
-
-

Darwinism isn't even a science, it's a pejorative certain theists came up with as mockery of Evolution.
Atheism isn't a science, it is just a person who doesn't believe in God
Marxism is a political economic system that has nothing to do with science.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:
The follow conclusion derived from those involved in the studies:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Whereby "humans naturally", it is meant that "it is natural for humans" or "humans are born naturally with" or "it is apart of human nature", etc. These are really what is meant by that part of the statement. For clarity, based upon the studies that focus on children in early years and reveal that children have a natural inclination towards "God concepts" such regardless of whether their parents are religious, atheist or otherwise.

So then, it seems humans are born with these deep seated convictions. Whatever they are, it'd be interesting to look more closely at the studies. Nonetheless, those involved who aren't Theist or God-leaning in any respect, the studies done to date seem to agree that humans have a natural predisposition towards beliefs to do with God.

Now this statement:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Kenny, this is merely restated in a negative form. Isn't this a logically equivalent statement to what has been concluded by those involved in such studies: Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God?

Here is where I disagree with you.

Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

Does not mean ALL humans, it just means when a human has a deep conviction of concepts to do with God, it is natural. It does not mean it is unnatural for a human to not have these convictions.

Yes, it does mean that.

Consider those who not having any moral compass, where raping and murdering children is just as "good" as not. Either way, it means nothing to them to say such conduct is right or wrong. They just don't get it, and so go with their "natural" inclination like say an animal would. But, clearly, something that sets humans apart from animals, even if you consider humans mere animals, is our being highly rational and moral creatures.

What would we say of psychopaths -- is the natural human predisposition to be without any moral compass, or are humans naturally moral creatures? I ask you, what do the scientific studies say...?

To not have moral convictions associated with God does not equal no moral compass at all. Your example is flawed.

Are you stating that humans can only naturally possess a sense of right and wrong if God exists, that humans are not naturally moral creatures?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Consider the statement,

It is natural for a person to want what they can’t have.

Does this mean if a person is content with what he has there is something wrong with him? No! I like the way Paulsacramento put it;

Science doesn't really address or do studies for what is natural or unnatural in regards to “convictions”.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

What it means is that someone who differs from their natural predisposition, they have for whatever reason walked away from such as they developed in life. Comes back the "nature" or "nurture", and it seems while one might have a nature with this and that, that such can be nurtured out of them.

As for PaulS, I have a feeling he had something different in mind to you, or else I say he is clearly wrong.

If PaulS were wrong, you would have been able to point out an example of something from science that states there is something unnatural for humans to not have deep convictions associated with God, by now.

I never said PaulS was wrong, rather likely your understanding of him. Given there is an area called, "Cognitive Science of Religion", clearly many do believe science can shed light on our natural cognitive disposition.

Studies and those responsible for them were previously pointed out here. To re-quote:

The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”. “We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies...

This gets us to:

• Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.

which is the logical equivalent of:

• It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Perhaps you're misunderstanding what is here meant by "natural" and "unnatural", so I elaborated on this more clearly in my second last post.

Otherwise, I see that I've lead you to the water Kenny, but it's not up to me to make you drink if you don't want to (I'm not talking about leading you to "God belief", but rather the topic at hand). Here are some other "wells" to help get you started with the studies out there:

Rebekah A. Richert and Justin L. Barrett, "Do You See What I See? Young Children's Assumptions About God's Perceptual Abilities," The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.

Traditionally, the development of children’s understanding of God has been described as anthropomorphic. In other words, that the starting point for children’s concept of God is that of a parent or “superhuman” in the sky. In terms of cognitive development specifically, the Piagetian notion that the term God is equivalent to a “big person” for a young child echoes throughout historical literature on children’s religious concepts (Paloutzian, 1996). This paper challenges this traditional cognitive explanation of the development of God concepts and proposes that even young children may not be limited to an anthropomorphic understanding of God. Instead, we offer support for a recent hypothesis that children may be cognitively “prepared” to differentially understand both humans and God.

Paul Bloom, "Religion is natural," Developmental Science

Despite its considerable intellectual interest and great social relevance, religion has been neglected by contemporary developmental psychologists. But in the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief – belief in mind–body dualism, and belief in divine agents – come naturally to young children. This research is briefly reviewed, and some future directions are discussed.

Kuriuo
Are you stating that humans can only naturally possess a sense of right and wrong if God exists, that humans are not naturally moral creatures?
Ken
No; I’m saying just because your moral compass isn’t tied to God doesn’t mean you have no morality compass at all

(previous quote)
The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”. “We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies…

Kuriuo
This gets us to:
•Humans naturally hold deep convictions of concepts to do with God.
which is the logical equivalent of:
•It is unnatural for humans to not have any deep convictions of concepts associated with theism (God).

Ken
The previous quote does not support your claim. The fact that religion is a common fact for humans does not mean it is unnatural for those for whom it is not a common fact


Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Non-belief is just based on the person's opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Have you interviewed or even spoken to all non-believers? No. Thus you are not qualified to speak on behalf of others you know nothing about

Ken

I have talked to and have discussed this with many nonbelievers and they all make sure that I realize that they are exempt from needing evidence,because atheism is not making a positive assertion and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So they admit they have absolutely no evidence behind their non-belief. But my point remains whether you are atheist or agnostic,there is absolutely no evidence behind either opinion. Also over time we have had many discussions on here and you go by your opinion and how you feel about things and you really don't care what other atheists might say. You go by your opinion without evidence. Not trying to be rude to you,but you do.I like to challenge atheists or agnostics to get serious about evidence behind your opinion because until you do you won't be able to tell when you are confronted with evidence because evidence is not important to them,just their opinion. I'm surprised that you are not explaining to us why you are exempt from needing any evidence for your non-belief.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Non-belief is just based on the person's opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Have you interviewed or even spoken to all non-believers? No. Thus you are not qualified to speak on behalf of others you know nothing about

Ken

I have talked to and have discussed this with many nonbelievers and they all make sure that I realize that they are exempt from needing evidence,because atheism is not making a positive assertion and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So they admit they have absolutely no evidence behind their non-belief. But my point remains whether you are atheist or agnostic,there is absolutely no evidence behind either opinion. Also over time we have had many discussions on here and you go by your opinion and how you feel about things and you really don't care what other atheists might say. You go by your opinion without evidence. Not trying to be rude to you,but you do.I like to challenge atheists or agnostics to get serious about evidence behind your opinion because until you do you won't be able to tell when you are confronted with evidence because evidence is not important to them,just their opinion. I'm surprised that you are not explaining to us why you are exempt from needing any evidence for your non-belief.

I have always been clear that I have plenty of evidence to support what I believe/do not believe. My evidence may not be up to YOUR satisfaction, but it is definitely up to mine; which is all that is necessary.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Non-belief is just based on the person's opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Have you interviewed or even spoken to all non-believers? No. Thus you are not qualified to speak on behalf of others you know nothing about

Ken

I have talked to and have discussed this with many nonbelievers and they all make sure that I realize that they are exempt from needing evidence,because atheism is not making a positive assertion and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So they admit they have absolutely no evidence behind their non-belief. But my point remains whether you are atheist or agnostic,there is absolutely no evidence behind either opinion. Also over time we have had many discussions on here and you go by your opinion and how you feel about things and you really don't care what other atheists might say. You go by your opinion without evidence. Not trying to be rude to you,but you do.I like to challenge atheists or agnostics to get serious about evidence behind your opinion because until you do you won't be able to tell when you are confronted with evidence because evidence is not important to them,just their opinion. I'm surprised that you are not explaining to us why you are exempt from needing any evidence for your non-belief.

I have always been clear that I have plenty of evidence to support what I believe/do not believe. My evidence may not be up to YOUR satisfaction, but it is definitely up to mine; which is all that is necessary.

Ken

Well whether or not you realize it or not. This is my own original argument against atheism/agnostic and I know it cannot be refuted,only ignored based on their non-belief opinion.