Of course! Have you ever seen a sunset or thought of how a human body works??

The most basic proof of God’s existence is simply what He has made. “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that [unbelievers] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God / And the firmament showeth His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

I like to think there is something more powerful than we can know or understand, but I do not believe in God as the Bible describes him. I have yet to discover an organized religion that I have complete faith in. I'm spiritual, but in my own way -- not how it's been defined by anyone else.

The face of a newborn child is the only evidence you need to prove the existence of a wonderful, powerful God who blesses us all.

I have grown up believing there is only one God. I have read most of the Bible, but I am also a college student who is very interested in the sciences. Still God seemslike the only logical answer.

Its seems to me that the further you delve into the sciences the more apparent it is that a God exists.

There is no means for a doubt. You hear amazing stories everyday. Adding to it, read the bible. How is it that each and every one of todays problems is told as a verse in the bible, with an amazing example of how to deal with it.

Well at least theres something 'higher' than us anyway. Definitely something fishy going on with it all, maybe we're being controlled by white mice? Not sure, but I'll go with a YES.

The Law of Cause and Effect:
For every effect there is a greater cause.
I physically observe the complexity of the universe, and I therefore conclude that the cause is greater than the universe.

True Atheism is an illogical belief system.
I shall explain:
Atheism comes from the Greek
broken down into its parts of:
Alpha negative - no
Theos - God
So Atheism literally means "there is no God"
it does NOT mean "I don't think there is a God" or "I don't believe in a God"
It literally means "there is no God"
It affirms a universal negative.
You may or may not know it, but it is impossible for you to affirm a universal negative.
I will illustrate:
I cannot say "There are no purple polka dotted stars in the universe"
I can't make this statement because:
A. I have not been everywhere in the universe simultaneously
B. I am not Omnipresent
C. I am not Omniscient
so in order to affirm a universal negative, you must have supernatural knowledge and power.
In other words, if you want to say "there is no God in this universe" you must be God.
The literal Atheist is saying "I am a being with infinite knowledge declaring that there is no being with infinite knowledge in the universe."
completely illogical.

Clever, but unconvincing. Logical deduction is useful in math and other abstract formal systems, but does not apply to arguments in the real world. (Even the name "formal system" implies as much: it's a system where truth is based solely on the forms of the statements, not the truth of the propositions.)
Or, if you prefer reductio ad absurdum:
1. There are at least two religions with Gods who claim to be the only God.
2. Denying the existence any God is affirming a universal negative, which is illogical.
3. Therefore, multiple Gods, each of whom is the only one, cannot be denied.
4. Absurd.

Yes because he has spoken to me.

If it is impossible to prove God's existence, it is also impossible to disprove God's existence. Just because we can form an explanation for the workings of our world does not mean that the underlying order that we, as humans, study does not exclude the possibility that God set that order out for us to discover. Perhaps evolution is a process that does occur, there's no reason to say that God didn't set the whole thing in motion. The same can be said for the Big Bang.

First off, There is no reason to disprove God's existence, because his existence was never proven. Science doesn't go around disproving every unproven possibility.
Secondly, without even citing the proof of the Big Bang Theory that exists....The Big Bang Theory is just that...A THEORY....no one says "the God Theory", they just that god definately exists.

More reasonable. There's evidence for evolution, but none for God.

The literal meaning of something has no impact on how it is interpreted today. The words cool and hot, for example, have meanings in some contexts that are totally different from their literal interpretations. True, there is no way to truly prove the nonexistence or existence of a divine creator either way, but atheism generally means the lack of belief in any organized religion.

My point wasn't that the Big Bang did occur, it was that if it occurred that it can be explained scientifically, but it can also be attributed to a divine power. I was making the point that God's existence cannot be proven by the very nature of God, and that science and God are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, there are plenty of people who maintain that God does not exist, therefore your final point, that is that "they just say(?) that God definitely exists" is moot.
Finally, what then, is the point of science if it isn't to prove theories? After all in order to prove a theory without any doubt one must also provide proof that disproves all other theories.

I absolutely believe in God. But I suppose I aught to provide a little more reasoning than simply "the Bible says He exists" or "people have always believed in a divine being of some sort." Rather I believe because I find that it makes sense with me. I find it comforting and many arrogant atheists have stated that religion is something that "common," "ignorant" people used to explain things they did not understand. I'm no missionary, nor do I seek to convert anyone here or anywhere else to my faith. Some may say that this is a sin unto itself. But if I where to go about preaching to non-believers who have already been exposed to my beliefs I'd be no better than the "door-to-door" missionaries who present themselves as models of faith which I find to be hypocritical. /nI firmly believe that religion has a place in any society and that religion and science can be reconciled by a little open mindedness on both parts. There are far too many people on both sides of the argument that believe that the other side is "damned to hell" and must be "redeemed" or are "ignorant" and "backward." My religious convictions aside I believe that people have a right to believe what they will, and not be condemned by any mortal for it.
With that, I think the question isn't "do you believe in God?" Rather we should all ask, "Can you accept that someone else believes something differently, and have a inviolable right to do so?"

YES. Wouldn't you would laugh at anyone who did not believe that there is a designer who designed your "designer jeans"? What about someone who thought watches and cars just accidentally fell together? The natural order leads to disorder...just look at our homes...just look at any machine that is not maintained.Can you see that it takes more faith to believe that our amazing bodies just fell together, then that they are designed by a designer? Just look at a leaf closely, or a sea shell, or even a spider web. Everything in nature points to an Intelligent Designer. Design only comes through some level of programing... by GOD. On top of that, we can also see that, "the heavens DECLARE the GLORY of GOD." says Psalm 19:1 from the NIV Holy Bible. It is clear that to be so blind as not to see God's hand in nature and in life, is the ultimate state of selfimposed darkness, emptiness, and meaninglessness. It is the opposite, of finding an Intelligent God who chooses to love us and who has shown it through his SON, Jesus Christ...What joy, hope, love , light and meaningFULLness this knowledge produces in us who see, and believe.Other species do not realize this truth because they were never programed to think about God. We were....

Why must religion and science always be compared to each other. No one asks a theologian to explain atomic theory (except when they are trying to prove that religion is false). In the same manner why do people insist on bringing religion into the realm of science?

It's just that so many people consider God and science to be opposite means of explaining the same thing. I don't think it's right to do so either.

Talk about "You guys can keep arguing the same baseless points", as another poster pointed out. Rolling out the old "bible full of contradictions" line, which is such an easy statement to make, hard to show though.

Actually, evolution's copout is that it doesn't explain how we got here. And order out of chaos, I don't believe that has anything to do w/science. Wishful thinking maybe.

for each issue:

- most were illiterate? I don't understand how this shows anything?

- whisper down the lane, or the gospels were written earlier, while the witnesses were still living. Problem w/whisper down the lane argument, its one person talking to one person, not multiple witnesses to an event

- again, the old contradictions line, hard to show these countless examples tho, and number of denoms have different ways to worship same God - that's supposed to disprove Him?

- next 2 can be combined. "why not create a universe where there is free will but no suffering." Think about that statement. Create a universe where you have free will, except you don't.

blammo, you mention these are good points. Really? What's good about them?

Hard to show? I'm assuming you've actually read the Bible. Try looking at even just the first two chapters of Genesis. The first chapter tells one version of how the world was created and then the second chapter starts over with a different version. In the first version, God creates plants, then animals, then man and woman. In the second version, God creates man first, then plants, and then animals so that man would not be alone. God creates woman last as a mate for man. The "bible full of contradictions" line IS an easy statement to make because it IS easy to show.

The theory of evolution is not meant to explain how the universe was created or how life originated on Earth. Sure, we don't know the answers to these questions today, but that's not a good reason to provide an explanation that doesn't really make sense.

First of all, you can affirm a universal negative. Heck, I'll do it right now: there are no gods. What you're trying to say is that it's illogical or irrational to affirm a universal negative.

Now, if affirming something meant that one were absolutely certain of it and believed that that there was no possible way one could be mistaken, you would be correct. But to make a statement does not imply absolute, unshakable belief in that statement, for which indeed omniscience is a logical prerequisite. It merely implies belief. I don't believe in any particular God because I don't see the evidence, and I don't believe in a nonspecific god simply because of Occam's Razor. Do I admit the possibility that I could be wrong? Of course; I always do. But until evidence shows up for which a god is the simplest explanation, I will assert that there are no gods.

Here is a list of 398 contradictions in the Bible:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

(Grrr... this site keeps adding a space after the "http://" and another one before "contra". I reported the bug. You'll have to take the extra spaces out manually for now I guess.)

You're right, evolution claims not to talk about how life started. It builds its house on a foundation it can't explain. The bible speaks about building a house on shifting sand, only a fool would...

you wrong about this line:

"After all in order to prove a theory without any doubt one must also provide proof that disproves all other theories."

That is not how science works at all. In fact, you couldn't be making a more wrong statement by saying that. Science works with facts and creates theories based on those facts. They don't waste their time trying to disprove everything. Science only proves things. In the case of Is there a god?, it would be science's job to prove if he exists. Not prove that he doesn't, that makes no logical sense! How can you ever disprove that something exists when you don't have access to the entire universe? I mean if I told you that unicorns or fairies existed...how could you possibly disprove that? You couldn't!

I do, however, accept your point about people saying that "God does not exist" without adding theory to it. It is true, that one could never definately say that as much as one who says "god does exist" can.

In order to prove a theory there has to be enough evidence to convince a very large majority that all other alternatives are false. There's two ways to do this, one can disprove all other alternatives (which is obviously impossible) or provide indisputable proof of the truth of the theory in question.

Finally I disagree with your assertion of it being science's job to prove that a god exists. Science studies the universe, god falls under the category of theology and it seems to me that theology and science are mutually exclusive only in so far as people choose them to be.

That doesn't mean that evolution is flawed. It's a biological theory, and the creation of the universe has more to do with physics. As to the origin of life, how is the interference of a divine being more likely than chance? Just because evolution does not explain the origin of life does not mean that God is the explanation.

Cybrweez

- so you'd follow and find uneducated/unable to write/read leaders worth following/believing? I'm betting you'd vote for an alcoholic born again leader too(aka GWB). "Watch out the moon is going dark! A disk is sliding over it! Must be god turning out the lights!"

- the old contradictions line is old because people have seen it for a long time = well trod and worthy. Number of denoms show how ridiculous it is to point to Christianity as worth believing in. "We have so many ways to believe in the same god, and each of these ways are the one way to get to heaven, to follow correctly." or "I'm right, you're wrong in the way you believe" "no I'm right, no I'm right" echoes the crowd 38000 times who all say they believe in the same god.

What kind of inept god begins/creates a religion in its VAST universe in the uneducated section of a desert region of a tiny planet at a time where its "word" or "desires" must be passed from word of mouth and can be misinterpreted enough that 38000 denoms happen. Why not speak plainly to all throughout time? There are how many times where god is supposed to have spoken directly to people in the bible? Must be capable of it...must be a childish god who likes to jerk its creation around.

I have thought about the free will statement. It makes perfect sense. If a god can create any universe it wants, it could create one where misery and "evil" don't exist and still give its creation an understanding of free will. It could create anything, any way of thinking.

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16).

True, we don't know how we were created, but believing that someone/something just poofed us into existence even though there is proof that the earth is older than the bible teaches is just plain crazy. There is clear proof that we evolved. Where is your clear proof that God created the world?

God is very real. This website will answer many of your questions.

Any of those supposed contradictions can be answered, just search a little on the internet, it won't take long. The problem is the search part. It looks good on the surface. I might think the contradiction b/w the Law of Biogenesis (life does not start from non-life), and the contention that that is exactly what happened (maybe as Rich Dawkins says, "from aliens, altho they must have evolved", or the other guy in Expelled, who claims life came on the backs of crystals :-0 ) would be a bigger problem then any in the bible. I mean, any dating measure used to date millions of years ago, assumes that everything is constant. Yet, in order for abiogenesis, it can't be constant, b/c we know now that it can't happen. So, isn't that contradictory? How can we rely on these dating mechanisms, when they rely on constancy? Oh, and how scientific is it anyway to assume that constancy? Is that constancy testable, or observable? Only by God actually.

2 + 2 = 4. If there are countless people who say it = 5, does that alter the truth? The number of differing opinions doesn't affect truth.

Its not a matter of God speaking plainly. Jesus interacted with plenty of people, and performed miracles, and they still hated Him. It comes down to our will, are we willing to trust. That's how God defines love, choosing a relationship with Him. Hence, He introduced free will, and the potential to choose NOT to have a relationship w/Him. To take away that choice, is to take away our chance to love Him.

What is that clear proof? And what did we evolve from?

Religion itself is a "shifting sand". It was thought that God created the world in 7 days - nowadays this view is passé, held only by fanatics; most claim that "7 days" means "7 periods of indeterminate time", or that the entire thing was just a metaphor. But the content of the Bible hasn't changed; just our interpretation of it - that is, just the religion itself.

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with admitting lack of knowledge about something, and science does this in many areas. Indeed, science is nothing but an attempt to fill those gaps in knowledge, which one cannot do without acknowledging their existence. Religiously denying them by saying "god did it" is called "god of the gaps", and is a tricky proposition what with science going around steadily filling them.

So despite your derogatory analogy of scientific endeavour (such as the theory of evolution) to "building a house on shifting sand", science is actually going about things the right way by acknowledging its limitations, while religion takes one of two paths: escaping into having only "personal meaning" and taking its holy books to have only "metaphorical" meaning, or remaining in denial and believing in "god of the gaps".

I believe in a "God"

All Dawkins has said is that there is no supernatural origin for life. He's given an example of aliens being those that seeded the planet as a way to say it could be something that could exist in the natural realm. They could have and would have to have evolved as well. He's never said for certain "Its aliens!" Which is the silliness that Stein is trying to say in his "want to capitalize on the fact that there is no right-wing Micheal Moore" movie. ID is laughable.

And with a little research by you on the internet you can find out all the contradictions in the bible and possibly learn even more about the bible's origins and why it would be "politically" that certain doctrines were adopted or not. For where would Christianity be if Constantine hadn't adopted it for political purposes and spread it throughout the Roman empire? I'll tell you where...right along side the rest of the early religions that Christianity adopted so many of its beliefs from.

So you are saying nothing is constant or knowable? And yet I bet you flip a switch to turn on a light and get in your car to work?

Somehow christians like yourself are happy to use science if it helps promote or "prove" your belief system but not if it calls it into question.

But to answer your question. Yes, dating mechanisms are observable and testable.

You rely on those systems that scientific method have provided in all walks of your life. That is...unless you are typing on a wifi laptop from a cave.

2+2=4 isn't always 4. Two halves plus two halves equal 2, heh.

So when you try to fit a belief in a supernatural unprovable realm as the same as scientific truth you have to use scientific rules. Your notion of god as "truth" is unprovable...and if you could, what would be the value of your faith?

Finally, how do you know that God would be able to understand about "constancy" and for that matter how do you know anything God knows or doesnt?

I'm certain those miracles in biblical writings are as real as Jesus was born from a virgin yet has biblical genealogy through his father's line. No sperm from Joseph yet traced back to Abraham so as to connect Jesus to biblical prophesy of the old testament.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_dad.html

In other words, I have no belief in miracles, in the same way that I have no belief in a god. The tales of them are from a culture that relied upon word of mouth. And had no concept of written truth. Meaning they could alter the actual facts of a story they were telling in order to promote whatever they were interested in at the time.

That is a great recipe for turning water into wine.

Why would God need a Jesus to speak with people at all?

Couldn't it have spoken directly or was it not all powerful?

You say God chose to give us free will. Did it love its creation...

no don't answer that, the old testament gives the answer.

Because I have faith. Faith is that funny little thing where you believe wholeheartedly without having to KNOW for sure. Can I substantiate my claims in faith?. No way. They are a matter of FAITH, not fact.

Prophecy: bible predictions 2000 years ago. Israel will become a nation again. Israel will be hated by all nations. Europe, revived roman empire, to be the final world government. EU gives rise to Antichrist, who will come out of Spain (10th nation of EU) and form a peace contract with Israel for 7 years. 666: mark of the Antichrist - a biometric identification system that will facilitate commerce. Increase in technology, earthquakes, transportation all in association with Israel becoming a nation. Check out http://www.jvim.com/ for amazing biblical prophecy.

Please check your sources. It's way too easy to say the bible contradicts itself when you don't read each passage in context.

Check out this supporting evidence, it is the best argument for the existence of God that I have ever read.

Yes, absolutely. I can point to a great many things where I know for certain He is with me every step of the way. Does that give me any reason to judge someone else that doesn't believe? Absolutely not.

Dear Sir, With all due respects. The question was Do you believe in God? and not "Do you believe in the BIBLE that it is the TRUTH?"

Thanks you for your valuable inputs though. However, get your facts right before writing vitriol. I suggest if you pls read the bible once with 'open eyes' and more importantly with a 'open mind', you will understand that actually there is no word that contradicts.

God Bless you. (needless to say i believe in GOD)

YES a BIG YES. I believe in a GOD who created me. I believe in HAND that creates the rules by which we choose to live or not. I BELIVE in a GOD who Loves.

Its arguments are all fallacious. It says the universe itself proves a god and then goes on to mangle and simplify what we know about physics and the big bang: That at the quantum scale causality breaks down so no first cause is necessary - and that the laws of the universe were structured different so as to allow many odd things. It is much simpler, says Ockham's razor, to suppose that the universe made itself when physics implies that it could've, or if that doesn't do it for you, that instead of invoking a unnecessarily infinite and intelligent first cause, invoke one with the only requirement: that it doesn't itself need a cause (again, not important because of quantum physics.)

[First Cause fallacy]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html) )

It than cites prophecy as the main evidence of Christianity, without acknowledging the explanations of vagueness, pattern seeking, inevitability, self fulfillment, and retrodiction. It also doesn't acknowledge the apparent prophecies of the Greek oracles, or the Koran, or individuals like Nostradamus (who Christians presumably reject for the same reason's I reject the bible's prophecies.) There is the other issue of innumerable unfilled prophecies that Jesus never did as promised in the Old Testament, and which keep many Orthodox Jews in anticipation for the true messiah.

God is Himself, so that we can be His people.

blank blank blank

If all material effects/movements are caused by something physical, then why assume a meta-physical being set in motion the ultimate first cause?

Lets not forget uncaused events like the vacuum fluctuations that occur all the time.

It would seem that our universes' existence does not require a cause

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

There is a place god will send you if you are bad where you will burn in agony for all eternity. But he loves you, right?

I can deeply respect you for that, and rest assured I return the favor as a devout Christian.

Speaking only as a Christian, because that is my faith, all I have to say is that that my faith speaks to me, guides me, leads me. Doesn't say a thing about you. In other words, it's a private conversation between me and Him, about what I need to do. Right now we ain't talking 'bout nobody else.

That's up to YOU to have that conversation with Him, or not, as you are moved or not moved. And I have no opinion as to whether my religion is right for you or not. That's a matter of respect for me, for you, and for my faith.

I agree with you 100% about the "highly religious." The best thing many of them could do would be to shut up and sit down because they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Ahem. Rest assured, much of what you hear from the most strident is their worship of the god money, not the God Yahweh.

This video is a response to:

"Even if you disagree with that analogy, you still haven't solved the First Cause problem, you've just bumped it up a level. If something greater than the universe caused the universe, what created that "greater cause"? If that "greater cause" has some special property that enables it to be a First Cause, why attribute that property to something outside the universe instead of applying it to the universe itself?"

Can you define universe or do you agree with Wikipedia?

"The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term "universe" may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world or Nature."

Responding to: "Just because things in the universe follow the Law doesn't mean the universe itself does."

The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A Response to Quentin Smith

Dr. William Lane Craig

Quentin Smith has recently argued that (I) the universe began to exist and (II) its beginning was uncaused. In support of (II), he argues that (i) there is no reason to think that the beginning was caused by God and (ii) it is unreasonable to think so. I dispute both claims.

His case for (i) misconstrues the causal principle, appeals to false analogies of ex nihilo creation, fails to show how the origin of the universe ex nihilo is naturally plausible, and reduces to triviality by construing causality as predictability in principle. His case for (ii) ignores important epistemological questions and fails to show either that vacuum fluctuation models are empirically plausible or that they support his second claim.

1. The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

From the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli, SJ (Intervarsity Press, 1994

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being?

Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be—even though their causes might no longer exist.

Reply: First, if the kalam argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.

Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist—and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe—and you as part of it—could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things—something not dependent as they are.

And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them—even an infinite number, if that were possible—we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need—for being, for existence—cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends.

From the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli, SJ (Intervarsity Press, 1994

"Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything."

That would be true if the state itself did physically exist, but it does not. "Mature size" is not a "thing" in the world. It's a quality of oak trees that some people perceive of certain trees. If all of the oaks on Earth died "mature size oak" would still exist because it only exists as a concept in the minds of humans. Conversely, if all humans died, "mature size oak" would disappear, because there would be no philosophers to declare, "this is a mature size oak".

Trees need no outside supernatural force to manifest some property that isn't intrinsic to them to begin with.

I'm OK with Wikipedia's definition.

"To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved?"

The problem here is that "thing" is pretty poorly defined. An acorn does not magically transform into a tree. Instead, the molecules within it used their stored energy to build the first shoot. That shoot then takes in carbon dioxide from the air and uses that to build new plant cells, which in turn grow more and more. So, from the perspective of the carbon, nothing has changed. It used to be floating in the air with its two oxygen pals and nows it's in a plant cell, part of an oak tree. At no point did that molecule attain "treeness".

"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. "

Not necessarily. You're skipping over the much more likely reality that things cause each other to change, in an interrelated cycle.

Bible quotes are never effective arguments. If your opponent believes the Bible is an infallible source of truth, you have no disagreement to begin with. If you opponent does not agree with you, he does not believe the Bible either, and the quote carries no weight.

If that's all the Bible is - a mere collection of ancient writings - then you still haven't proven or disproven God; all you've done is slam a book people consider to be the writings of God. If the writings do amount to nothing more than man's handiwork (and chances are likely that they are), then all you've really proven is that God was not behind the Bible at all. If God wasn't behind the Bible, that doesn't mean he couldn't be behind something else - this is God, after all.

Now, suppose there was no Bible. Could you still find some way to downplay the potential existence of a deity? Or is the "contradictory useless old book" too critical, too precious to your argument?

True, chances are unlikely, but the chance is there; those who believe could be just as wrong as those who don't. The problem is that such a far-fetched notion has pervaded society for generations. With that timespan comes the continual tweaking of the notion to be potentially true - instead of simply dismissing a viable God as a childhood imaginary friend, people have crafted the workings of exactly how and why a God could exist.

The method of attack should not focus on the Bible - it's very easy to discredit pieces of literature and, as shown by the American atheist movement, it is highly overdone. It should focus on the doctrines of the faith itself - predestination, heaven and hell, sin, the miracle of Jesus - everything. Deconstructing the notion of God should encompass the major aspects of God; focusing on the scrawls of ancients instead of the beliefs themselves amounts to child's play. For people who think the Bible nothing more than rubbish, they certainly hang on to it as much as the believers do. If someone could deconstruct the Catechism, THEN I'd be impressed.

Forget about the bible, the claim is 'god exists'. Like any other claim, it requires evidence to be taken seriously. It has no evidence. It is taken seriously. The former isn't going to change. The latter is changing because of the former. Childhood indoctrination is lessening, technology is giving more people the time and security to think their way out of the dead end that is religion. It's simply doomed.

The funny thing about this debate is that regardless of which side you're on, you're there based on faith. I like to think that God intended this. Science and a belief in God do not have to be mutually exclusive of each other. I believe God intended us seek knowledge and question things...even Him. I also believe His design ensures that we'll never find all the answers. For everything science brings to the table, it won't be able to prove "scientifically" that the universe and everything in it, is a result of random happenstance. I don't knock those that question His existance because I didn't always believe. Like many, I believed because my parents taught me to believe. A time came when I realized that there would ALWAYS be something to be discovered, questioned, and debated, and I asked myself how likely is it that such a universe just happened? I have great respect for science and it's power to make things both good and bad, but I put my faith in God and will bet that He'll keep science questioning forever.

Gotta tell you, I hear that so much. In truth, what a horrible argument. "It happened this way, I thought that was obvious". If its obvious, please explain how the laws came about.

If anything could prove the existence of God beyond a doubt, it is love. If we were only evolutions of animals, we wouldn't be capable of love. We wouldn't be capable of sacrificing ourselves for those we love.

First of all, I would like to see where specifically the bible contradicts itself. I've never found a place. When you study the bible, when you really study it, and don't take one phrase out of context, you find that each one harmonizes with the other. Some people look at one verse, and try to make a whole sermon on the subject, or say "see the bible is contradicting itself."When, in fact, what you're really doing is taking one piece of the puzzle and trying to make a picture; that's going to give you the wrong info every time. God says "Seek and you shall find,if YOU SEEK WITH ALL YOUR HEART." Many people don't search for answers with all of their heart. God doesn't just put the information you want out there; you have to want to find the answers. If God just put the answers right there for you to find, then it wouldn't be valueable to you. What do dad's always want you to learn? The value of a dollar. If he gives it to you, you have no concept of how much work it took to get that dollar, so the son spends as if nothing, but if he had to work for it, he appreciates it more then if it was handed to him. Don't make a case on a verse that may seem to go against what the bible is saying, instead, compare it with more verses on the same topic, and you will see that that verse wasn't contradicting, but rather adding more to the answer. Remember a puzzle needs many pieces to be complete, so you can see the full picture, and not just one piece and then you try imagining what it is. if the bible was a book of fairy tales, it wouldn't be the most printed book ever, it wouldn't change millions of lives, and Jesus wouldn't have said that he was the word. It is like no other book, because God himself made, and inspired all the bible writers. God doesn't contradict himself.

First of all, I would rather believe that there is a creator, then that everything happened by chance. It doesn't make sense to say that if you look at a car, that somehow everything crashed together and made a car that RUNS. The other question; That's real easy. This "powerful being" already thought of that and gave us a book that he inspired called the bible. He gave it to us so that we could know more about him

You obviously are very ignorant. If you would know your bible, or bothered to research the subject, you would know that "your sins have seperated you from your God. God can't coexist where there is sin, that's why he had to make a plan to get us back by sending Jesus to die for our sins. Because the penalty for sin is death; a long before our creation law that was made. in order that we wouldn't have to pay, since we ALL have sinned, Jesus payed the ultimate punishment in our place, so that we could receive Jesus's reward. But of course, nobody would have kept a record that this even happened, except for the bible. So, if sin has seperated, then of course, you begin to wonder why he doesn't show himself.

It is so much easier to not believe in God than to believe in him.

Are you asking for what form our ancestors took? In that case, a whole range, from microbes to insects to reptilians to primates. Take your pick.

And yet you do nothing except reinforce my point that atheists as a whole believe themselves to be superior to religious people. Why it is that you feel the need to try and belittle someone else's beliefs I'll never understand. I've never said that atheists are stupid because they don't believe in God, only stated observations about atheists' behavior. I think that atheists are arrogant because they don't bother to acknowledge they may in fact be wrong and as a whole demand that everyone believe exactly as they do. I find religious people who do the same to be arrogant as well.

It's one thing to voice your beliefs and try to convince someone, it's an entirely different thing to tell someone that they are wrong when one cannot provide any proof to support the claim. Personally I think that the universe has far to many coincidences to have been created by accident, I also think that God put in place a system of rules for the universe to follow and that investigating those rules is one of the most enduring and worthwhile uses of one's life.

Science and religion study too different things, science is the study of the universe, religion is the attempt to understand God and God's will. Both could coexist, many of the earliest scientists had the same world view as I have described, and the Church supported the. However people choose to ignore what to me seems to be fairly simple and straightforward. However, perhaps I am wrong and God will condemn every scientist who wanted to know how something worked, but that doesn't sound like the the God I believe in.

"Blessed more are those who have not seen and still believe."

[:

Though I don't believe in any gods, I wish this point of view In the same manner why do people insist on bringing religion into the realm of science?, was more widespread.

If religion was exclusive of science there wouldn't be much left for religion is, I feel, the reason why it's not widespread. Where "god(s)" has been an answer for unknowns historically (alcohol in wine, fertility, our creation, morals, etc, etc) it just isn't good enough, or the case anymore. Science has striven, in a way that religion cannot, to explain the things that gods were thought to be responsible for previously. Gods have been and are still being pushed out to the extremities. Because of that science is under attack from religion and pseudo-religion (perversely so with biological science) so much these days. If science had got it so wrong you'd think they'd leave well alone?

Couldn't of said it better myself.

The greatest scientist of this century, Albert Einstein saw clearly that the universe is designed and orderly therefore, it must be the result of a mind not merely a matter of bumping around randomly if space. Einstein put it like this, "The order of the universe reveals intelligence of such superiority that it overshadows all human intelligence." So for all of you nonbelivers, yes there is a God and it doesnt take the amount of intelligence that Einstein had to tell that. Have you ever seen a sunset? Have you ever seen a newborn baby? That is God!!! If the moon was 6 inches closer to the Earth(literally) we would have such crazy ocean current and tide variations that it would make human existance on earth impossible. On the other hand, if it were 6 inches further away, our weather patterns would be so extreme that, likewise, human existance would be impossible. If you think that that is all just one big coincidence, then I would seriously question your intelligence.

I am totally lost with this one. i dont really know what to believe in sometimes. i think that there is so much going on to say the existance of god exists that what real evidence do we have that says that god doesnt exist? maybe all the different types of religion are scattered everywhere but if you join them all together then you will see that all religions are all going on about the one god in the end making that to have this many followers, it sort of says that god does exist in his own way

Quick question for those of you who are both atheists and Democrats (which, if my Republican friends are correct, that's all of them). Most atheists I know think that anyone who believes in God is a moron. So here's the question:

Is Barack Obama a liar or a moron? He says that he is a Christian, which, according to those atheists who believe Christians are morons, makes him a moron. Either that or he's lying about his beliefs. I've always been curious about people's opinions on the matter. Thanks!

I do believe in God and have experienced Him in my life! A year ago I was diagnosed with stage 4 stomach cancer, basically I was given a year to live, it was considered terminal. Well, I have been healed by the power of Jesus Christ, three months ago I was divinely healed in Lakeland Florida. I went because I had heard that people were being healed at this revival and I didn't have any other options so I went to worship God, and the pastor literally said someone here has stomach cancer and needs to come up here, so I waited and waited and I knew in my heart, I could feel the burning in my spirit that it was me he was talking about so I made my way up to the stage. He came up to me and said in the name of JESUS be healed and without even touching me I fell back on the ground literally slain in the Spirit and it was like my stomach was a wave pool, like a washing machine . . . so I come back to TN and go to the doctor and there is no cancer anywhere, I just wanted to add this to the debate because miracles like this need to be known and accounted for. I know that God exists and that there is power in the name of Jesus that there is healing in His name and He is good!!!!

ask yourself, how did humans existed in this world? It is very impossible that without any creator, people would exist in this world. A pair of cells is needed in order to produce a new living thing.

I believe in God.. as we can simply see today it was to simple to say you don't believe in God because of the matter that you never saw him!!!!! yet i am telling you... how can you ask if there really is God? it only indicates that deep within you there sis ca triggering factor that you still have faith in the Supreme being

i believe in god so i won't go to hell ^.^

I am a scientist and someone who believes in God. Maybe not the way the Bible describes him, as it was written by man and therefore flawed, but I still believe that there is a higher being. We don't have the scientific methods to test for him (or her =)!

of course. Looking around us we see things that cant be explained away by futile theories created by people to fill the void in their life.

Take Yellowstone. Travel there, walk around and tell me if it takes more faith to believe that it was a random act of evolution or a planned act of an all-powerful God.

It is true that there is no hard core evidence that God exits, but there is no proof that he doesn’t exist. Can anyone who doesn’t believe in God provide hard core evidence that contradicts God existence? Not theories, stories, or assumptions, but evidence.

Just because we are incapable of proving God exists does not mean he doesn’t. Once people were incapable of proving that the world was round so did that make it flat? There is also archeology that coincides with the bible. Also the reason most Christians don’t need evidence is because we have FAITH. Those who believe that God doesn’t exist have just as much FAITH in the matter, because there is no hard core evidence that proves the belief that God doesn’t exist.

Of course I believe in the Lord. How else could we have possibly been created. I also believe that yes animals have evolved but they were put on the earth by God. Such as humans were.

I do believe in God I was brought up with it and I'd like to think that there is a chance that something happens to me ... not just in a dark abyss or something.

I'm just going to say yes. Any questions about that?

How can you say there is no evidence? I suppose you believe in the Big Bang (so do I). How do you suppose the Big Bang came to be? And don't say "random events". There is no way the entire Universe simply came to be without a Necessary Being. And what about miracles? Are they just by chance? God can be seen in so much around the world, so either you live under a rock or you just don't notice anything about how God is constantly here with us. Next time you go outside, look at the intricacy of the trees: how the branches intertwine and the colors are so vibrant. Look at the diversity of life and the delicacy of it. The balance of nature and the contrasts between night and day, alive and dead. To say there is no evidence of God is a HUGE fallacy.

You've got it completely right, pvtNobody. Don't worry about it—most atheists (not all, some are very respectful), but a lot of them are condescending because of insecurity. The insecurity is related to clinging to a belief system that lacks any depth or true solidity. (How many times have we heard that "turns out science was wrong" and the "facts" they held so dear turned out to be wrong and have changed over time. Unlike Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.) If one is feeling insecure, one popular strategy is to project their frustration. Of course its results are hurtful and shallow and not based on facts, (which is ironic since they like to throw "facts" around a lot) Anyways, thus the sarcasm and name-calling. Let's pray for them. God won't condemn scientists who wanted to know how things work (He created and loves them!)—only those that still reject Him in the end.

The bible was created for a guide on the ways in which to conduct your life, like a moral compass. It was not made as a "shipping building guide" or anything else that includes step by step craftsmanship. If you had a higher view of God you would understand why God can't be with us for eternity. God is perfect! That means he has done everything ever out of love. Not lust, greed, manipulation, or hatered, but purely out of love. I challenge you to try and do things for other people today and see how hard it is to do.

The term, god, is not defined in this so called, babble.

Never debate a man who cannot define the terms of his propositions. When the term, god, is mentioned there are as many meanings to what god is as there are people thinking of god.

God: a term that denotes a supreme authority.

Even the Ten commandments implies the presence of other gods who too are worshiped.

Conclusion: All men/women believe in a god whose existence and authority are predicated upon the intellect of Its' creators.

I'll put it this way, Life to exist without a deity of some sort (I personally belive it is my Father in Heaven but I'll debate that some other time) is near impossible, for example, a species is now defined as a group of organisms that can succesfully breed and create fertile offspring in the wild, so if, let's say, a homo habilis once did evolve from a homo erectus, the chances of just one evolving is near zero, but since species cannot breed out of species then how would humans evolve and populate the earth?

Yes because God has pulled me out through the hard times, and is the one and only God who loves unconditionally and is fair. If you want a scientific view He created this Earth and there is no way this Earth could have been created by some accident. A cell with its complicated parts could not have been created by an accident either, but only by God and his perfection.

yes because without hope whats the point in living so why dont all you non belivers do a test shoot yourselves and get back to me on God and the Devil

YES!! why are we always losing these things. i have aswered the debate topic. yes. i have just reaffirmed my position

The evidence of God's existence is all around us: You, Me, Life the World, the Universe. There is no way science can explain how something can just come into existence out of nothing. The Big Bang Theory? Where did that little ball of matter that exploded come from? How did it come to be? There is no way to explain the existence of everything in the universe without God or some sort of higher power. In science, one has to know how to explain something, but we don't have to understand God. One must just have faith. The existence of God is what makes sense to show where everything came from, while science does not makes sense in this subject. Why did we come to be? What causes us to have morals? Do you really want to believe that your mind, body, spirit, and whole being are just a random collection of matter, that you mean nothing. I don't know about you, but that is such a grim thought to me.

of course he is just have faith it will help you in the end i hope you people who say no dont burn i shall pray 4 u so ok

I have faith and believe in miracles, and I believe in God

Yes, i do. I used to ponder upon the idea of there not being a God, but now im sure will all my heart that there is a God. No matter waht anyone else says.

if you have faith in God you will be happy forever.PLUS!who created the earth?God.who made people?God.who made the meteaor that destroyed the dinosaurs?God did it all!!!!!

People that don't believe in GOD have no structure in their lives.That is the people that is always complianing and being miserable.They have nothing to live for.Just remember the world is temporily.

So you believe even though you have no evidence for or against, you just have faith because you have faith because you have faith.... You are a classic drone because if you accept no evidence nothing can sway you, your mind is closed. In the real world nothing is for certain but everything can be backed with some kind of evidence. If it can't it doesn't exist.

With that kind of logic you could pretend like anything you want really exists. You could pretend that you will find a hundred dollars every day for the rest of your life based on no evidence at all, but that wouldn't make it happen.

Great story, unfortunately in this setting it is meaningless without evidence. Christians often use emotionally charged stories of miraculous recoveries because people are too afraid to ask for the evidence.

Yes I believe in God. I also believe in religion because I'm Irish/Italian and I was raised Catholic because there was no other choice for me....but yes, I believe there is a God.

I do believe that their is something that created everything in the universe and i called it god because that is the word or term I grew up with but i do not believe in religion and it belief that theirs books came from the divined that is a load of crap and religion is just the earliest form of government

yes of course.

people used to say all this stuff that wasnt true and i would just prove them wrong.

it is hard to believe but thats life

Well for those of you who believe in the big bang theory where the Earth was cereated by an explosion of gases and other stuff, I ask you this: Where did the gases come from?

i think so because if you dont what will you bieleve in.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

I believe in my god Jesus Christ, because there is proof of him being here on earth. Not because of the Bible,. Because the simple fact that explores and scientist found proof.

of course........god exist....

Nd the people who dnt believe that god exist dont belive on themselves......

I have never understood why people cannot accept that religion and God exist simultaneously with science. Science explains how things happen, but religion seeks the explanation of why these things happen- something science will never be able to do.

Religion seeks an explanation for why things happen. Science only answers how things happen.

i.e. How did the Earth form?

-Well, after billions of years the dust that composes earth eventually clumped together and condensed to form a planet. Some of this dust also made the sun.

How did all of this matter come to be?

-Billions and billions of years ago, at the beginning of time, there was the Big Bang, where an extremely dense piece of matter that held every atom in the known universe- the size of a pinhead maybe. All of the energy there caused it to explode and from there, galaxies and solar systems were born.

Where did the small piece of matter come from? or Why did the Big Bang happen?

If you can logically come up with a scientific answer to this, then you are absolutely amazing. How can everything come from nothing? Unless.... God made it! The spiritual being that always was and always will be created everything that never was and will cease to be!

The beginning of time. How did it all start? The Big Bang, right? Okay.... Explain how the Big Bang came to be. Oh right, a very dense piece of matter exploded and created the universe. But wait, how did that piece of matter come to be? There was nothing before it. Oh, that's right. God, the being who always was, created it, fully intending for it to explode and make the universe. Duh.

Okay, so let's say it was an accident- how did the accident come to be? There really is no explanation for why the universe began without factoring some supernatural being.

We don't need to know anything about the initial force that created the universe- that's why there are many different religions out there. We just need to understand that there was some initial force.

A supernatural accident then :) The universe is a bubble that happened to form in the supernatural river that has always existed.

So say we accept an initial force, so what? Where do you go from there?

exactly. In nature there is something called synergy. that is, when two materials fused together make for a stronger (for example)material than the sum of the strength of the materials separately. This happens because of how they interrelate for certain mathematical forms are stronger than others. A tetrahedron is a stronger form then a box for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetrahedron.svg

different forms coming together randomly can cause huge exponential changes

No, the initial force could have been non-intelligent, like in my river example. You're just stretching the word "God" to mean "any possible initial force." In conventional usage, "God" means "Intelligent being who created the universe."

I don't think he's a moron -- quite the opposite actually -- but it's a simple fact that an atheist would almost definitely not be elected President of the United States. Thus, any politician will have an incentive to delude themselves and avoid thinking about the question too much. So I would say he's not a moron or a liar, he's simply choosing not to seriously question his faith.

Science and religion (particularly Christianity) intersect in positive ways. For instance, it was Christianity that gave us the modern university system, and helped to keep scholarship alive through the middle ages. The Church also gave us the scientific method, and has assisted in many other scientific advancements throughout the ages. The Vatican even has fully-funded scientific commissions. Moreover, the Church has relied upon science to help it form opinions of the world. For instance, the Church relies upon science to provide the facts which it then analyzes using philosophy and theology, and then arrives at a conclusion (for instance, that slavery is evil). The fact is, though, it's not really possible for Christianity/philosophy/theology and science (that is, the search for truth in the physical world) to conflict, since they address different questions.

Why do things happen by chance then? Why is there randomness in the world?

i believe in god, but i do not believe in man. man has twisted the idea of god to a point where people with authority in churches have mixed ideas about god.

I have a book recommendation for all of you English-speaking non-believers: The Holy Bible, King James Version.

I usually want to stay out of these types of debates, but I'm voting just to get the YES!! side off of 666 votes (that's just sick irony). Yes, I believe in God. I am a Christian, and I hate it when God and science are compared. I don't see why God couldn't have just set evolution in motion. Genisis says that God made Adam from the dirt and dust. That is exactly where the small mammals that we supposedly evolved from came from. :-o It makes you think doesn't it.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

I agree. God at most would be a distant being. I don's think that an all powerful God can exist. For example, if he is all powerful, can God make a rock he cannot lift? But if he is all powerful, then he can lift the rock. Either way an all powerful God is unlogical and cannot exist. At most I would give in to a divine energy like the force from star wars.

I really wish there were 3-sided debates and I could say, "sort of". I believe that we don't know. I like the idea of a benevolent force in the universe, so I choose to believe that. But I am open-minded enough to admit the possibility that I am entirely wrong.

Believing in God is fine, but believing you know about the nature of God and how he created the world is silly. Nobody can know these things, and so many different religions purport to know, but give such different accounts, that we are better off admitting it's up in the air.

I hate seeing bumper stickers or t-shirts saying, "Do you know where you'll go when you die?" No, I don't, and neither do you.

I understand how life is capable on Earth. I don't mean to boast, but I've taken AP Physics and AP Biology, as well as a year of honors Chemistry and Honors Biology freshman year- I'm well versed in the sciences (And I hope to go into medicine or mechanics!) Therefore, I'm fairly certain I know how there is life on Earth.

But we don't know why life is here! God always was and always will be. He is a complete enigma and a mystery to the human race. Any attempt to explain who He is and why He did the things He did is impossible.

Yes. I am from a christian family. LIke someone else sais, science and religion sholdn't be compared. I was in a hristian school as a child and we had scinece class every day.

So, you are telling me that the universe was made by a bunch of gases which went boom. Then after a long process it became the Earth.

Just a little question about your theory. Who made these tiny gases? Who made life? It would take more than just a coincidental arrangement of atoms and molecules to form a single living cell. Science does not explain life AT ALL. What happens in the afterlife? Or, what is outside of the universe? is it just empty space? How far does it lead us?

Science is not everything. It's a good thing that only 1/5 of the world population are atheists. People who do not have faith are neglecting a huge prospect in their life. Among them are love and knowledge.

God exists. All "He" is, is energy. The energy that makes up everything in existance. Take THAT athiests.

Totally agree. This happens WAY too much and I think that there is a way that someday will allow the two to go hand in hand. Plus, as a Catholic, I DO believe in God

Ya know, it's psychotic attitudes like that which only goes to prove you homos are violent lunatics!

And for the record, I've been persecuted and abused all my life by fags - just for being Christian. I remember when I was just 16 year old, a fag-lovin liberal Judge put me in prison for ATTACKED at a Gay Pride Parade. Hey, it was only blanks, and you'd think they'd see the funny side, but he was REAL mean about it. He even included 3 prior assault charges, an tried to say it was some sort of hate crime. He called me all sorts of hateful words, and my two boys were crying all thro' the trial. It was shocking! My whole family were in tears, but my daddy said he was real proud of me for showing those fags what for.

I served 2 years for that, and had to be apart from my two sons all that time, and it hurt real bad. It still pains me that I missed so much of their childhood. Now that's TRUE persucution! You fags wouldnt know what persecution was if it walked up, and smashed a brick into ur teeth. I was persecuted because of my faith. Because i'm a Christian. Christians are always a target from God-haters. But we have to stay strong, because we can't let our Lord down and give into all this fag-rights nonsense. God said in the Bible exactly what rights fags have - NONE WHATSOEVER! I still pray everyday that our Laws get changed to the Laws of the Bible, so that we can smite all those who God wants smited, and stone all those God wants stoned. Praise!

Until then my family will always suffer abuse from fags in the street, who know our names and follow us everywhere we go. They throw things at me and call me a psycho, and try to get me to violate my parole. Yes, we live in a small town, and Christians are always a target in that kind of enviroment from God-haters and lunatics. You talk about intolerance, well what you fags are doin to my family is intolerance, and you know it!

I never said the Bible is 100% true and science must back it. I believe the creation stories and much of the beginning of the Bible to be merely stories meant to make people understand the power and awesomeness of God, not to tell them how the Earth began. They had no idea how it began back then.

Yes please just truly pray and believe you will understand, we would not have talked about him for 2009 years if he weren't real!

You're forgetting that humanity means nothing. We have observed 3000 galaxies, and that's only what we've seen. You're telling me that out of an estimated 500 billion galaxies, not to mention the possibility of there being more than one universe, that the chemical / physical reactions couldn't at least create another planet with life?

Remember that we're not even breaching the realms of other life, such as non-carbon based lifeforms- or for that matter, OTHER DIMENSIONS.

Think your statement over again.

Where do i start?...I don't believe that there is a 'god', however, I do believe there is an energy of some kind out in the world. And my question is why does god have to be a man? Why can't people understand the meaning 'it'? No one has met god so how would anyone know? People get way to caught up in the whole god thing. Its over-rated. I'm not saying all Christians, but a lot of them don't see the other side of god and religion. They just practice their religion not understanding the meaning of Judaism or the Islamic religion.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Old Testament is the oldest reliable text.

It has passed the three scientific tests to prove that it is reliable.

Many outside sources provide proof to the accuracy of the Bible.

There are many account of the flood (Genesis 6-8, I think)

I know some people who don't.

So because something's complicated means god exists? There's no evidence god exists, and never will be any. Everything that's here can be explained by evolution and chaos. You guys can keep arguing the same baseless points, but I'm not going for it until a big glowing dude in a toga steps out from the clouds and does something crazy, like turn the ocean into bubble gum for a day.

Good point, aside from the fact that the scientific theory of evolution provides another reasonable explanation.

The theory of evolution hardly disproves the existence of a God.

The theory of religion hardly disproves evolution.

I have a hard time believing in God. There is no proof, and the bible isn't enough for me. Seeing the amount of suffering in the world (poverty, war, health) also makes me question His existence.