Usually on this blog I say what I think, and other people comment. Tonight I'm going to do something different.
I want to ask you, whoever you are, whoever might read this post, whether you are absolutely confident that God exists.
Meaning, you don't just believe, hope, suspect, hypothesize, have faith that God exists. You're sure. And not just pretty sure. You're 100% sure. You've got no doubts about the reality of God.
If that describes you, leave a comment on this post.
Explain the reasons for your absolute surety about God's existence. And while you're at it, tell us about the God that you know exists. What is he/she/it like? Describe his/her/its characteristics. Enlighten me.
I'm serious about this. I'm a skeptic about God. I haven't come across any demonstrable evidence that God is real. But often religious believers argue with me. They say, "Brian, you're wrong about God."
OK. I want to give those people a chance to explain why they are so sure God exists. Again, not in the sense of a belief, or of faith. Why are you certain that God is real?
Please, no quotations from holy books. I'm interested in your personal conviction, your personal certainty, your personal evidence for God's indisputable existence.
I'm listening. Talk to me, religious believers.
God is Consciousness.
Posted by: a satsangi | October 28, 2012 at 03:29 PM
a satsangi, some thoughts on "God is consciousness."
Why isn't God the universe? Or a cup of coffee? Or energy/matter?
Saying God is something other than God doesn't explain God. It's like saying "love is blind." OK, now we know that love is not being able to use one's eyes. But is this really what love itself is?
Consciousness is a mystery. So if God is consciousness, God also is mystery. Which doesn't say anything.
Most neuroscientists think consciousness arises from a physical nervous system. If this proves to be correct, does this mean God is the brain? Again, if so, why use two terms for the same thing?
Good try, but your three word response isn't persuasive.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 28, 2012 at 09:13 PM
I was initiated over 50 years ago and I have done my daily MEDITATION for 2-3 hours a day, sometimes longer. I have traveled into the ASTRAL region with my MASTER, etc. SANT MAT is REAL! Just because you NEVER had any inner experiences doesn't mean you weren't making any spiritual progress. TRUST me when I tell you, SANT MAT is REAL!!! Don't feel bad because you NEVER had any inner experiences... it's OK! It's not too late to get back on track. Always remember that when you got initiated on this path, it wasn't accident. YOU ARE DOOMED FOR SACHKAND whether you like it or not. Your LIFE has already been played out!
SANTMAT is not a RELIGION! Surat Shabd Yoga is a spiritual exercise and not a RELIGION. Religion is man made and is designed to control the masses through fear, etc.
Posted by: Shaman Srivastava (my email may or may not work) | October 28, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Shaman, you didn't answer the guestions:
"Explain the reasons for your absolute surety about God's existence. And while you're at it, tell us about the God that you know exists. What is he/she/it like? Describe his/her/its characteristics. Enlighten me."
Claiming you've seen such and such, or have experienced such and such, means nothing. Words are cheap. Everybody knows how to spend them.
You need to provide some specifics, some demonstrable evidence, some reasonable proofs. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you?
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 28, 2012 at 09:26 PM
I, to a great extent, appreciate and even share your Cartesian doubt about that of which I haven't first-hand empirical awareness; however, your reductio ad absurdum response is methodological solipsism to a degree unworthy of your undeniable brilliance. I did not say God is conscious; I said God IS Consciousness. I do not seek to persuade you of that which you cannot know, i.e., the content or validity of my consciousness. Nevertheless, for the sake of your own voracious (and admirable) curiosity, give some thought to Eugene Wigner's (among other quantum physicists’) position on non-physical consciousness. Or perhaps more to your overall frame of reference, this from T.H. Huxley, "How it is that anything so remarkable as consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp." Six of one; half a dozen of the other.
Posted by: a satsangi | October 28, 2012 at 11:47 PM
This is far more comment than I ever intended beyond by original 3-word post; so, I will gladly allow your response to be the final word in this (or any other) regard. I wish you well; bid you good-night and happy trails, dear heart.
Posted by: a satsangi | October 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM
a satsangi, my criticisms remain. Saying that "god is love," or "truth is beauty," or such doesn't explain anything. It's not like e equals m c squared. Energy is mass; mass is energy. We can observe the distinct manifestations of mass and energy.
But we only experience consciousness. There's nothing distinct called "god." So what's the point of saying "god is consciousness"?
Also, quantum physics knows that some qualities of the universe, like the mass and charge of particles, aren't dependent on consciousness. So by your definition, "god" isn't ultimate reality, just the portion of reality that seems to be dependent on a conscious observer.
A weak god, for sure. Certainly not how most people view the term, "god."
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM
a satsangi, you may have noticed that this blog isn't like a religious meeting. People often/usually don't get away with uttering a platitude like "god is consciousness." We like to dig deep into truth here, rather than accepting shallow falsities.
Ooh! That brings up another possibility: "god is truth." In that case, we should worship science!
I hope you'll hang in there and respond to comments and criticisms of your views. That's how we grow: being challenged to examine unfounded assumptions. Truth is in that direction, not in unquestioned dogma.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM
OK, you've caught me up, sleepy, fidgety, waiting on an international phone call (business, but nothing so "nefarious" as an RS communication, I assure you) so, here's my really-for-real final post; and this only because in refuting my point you make it for me. Surely, you are aware of the leaning in unified field theory that the observed and the observer are (as of current thinking) inseparable.
As for worshipping science: not a bad idea! I certainly don't believe in "worship" of any other sort. (What an archaic term.) I'd certainly recommend that as opposed to ritualized, religious nonsense aimed at placating some anthropomorphized sky deity, or whatever it is you imagine I imagine. Unquestioned? You have no idea, friend.
I don't in any way criticize or even comment on the why or wherefore of your blog. Over the years I check it out, once in awhile, just to see how the "other half" is doing, and because I am a great admirer of "God's Whisper Creation's Thunder" and Plotinus. That said, for me, and only for me, blogging, posting, commenting on the unknowable (by that I mean the content of another person's core experience) is right up there with broken-hearted drunk dialing.
Gawd, I wish the phone would ring so I can go to sleep. It's been a long day.
Posted by: a satsangi | October 29, 2012 at 01:00 AM
It depends what you mean by ‘exist’. My personal belief is that God exists as a concept in human thought, that it (s/he, whatever) is a construct of human consciousness. Those who accept the concept as a reality will see their conception, which to you and I may be figments of their imagination, projected in the (so-called) real world. That is their evidence; they see what they believe, as do all of us. Not only are they not wrong, but a) their mind is behaving normally according to modern neuroscientific understanding, and b) they can’t understand why you can’t see what for them is obvious (God is everywhere), just like you can’t understand why they can’t see what to you is obvious (God is nowhere).
Actually, if God is everywhere that means that God is nowhere in particular. So, God can be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. That sort of cancels the whole thing out, and it means that no one is right and no one is wrong, which makes a nonsense of trying to make sense of it!
Nevertheless, the idea that God exists as a concept in human culture means that it exists for all of us because we are immersed in our intellectual environment and even if we chose to escape it, say by moving to a different country or adopting a different religion, we take our cultural inheritance with us and it would influence our perception of, and therefore our behaviour within, our new environment. So, even non-believers cannot escape the concept of God. This concept is a figment of non-believers’ imagination, too – what differs is beliefs about the nature of its ‘reality’.
You say God doesn’t exist, but here you are talking about it, therefore God DOES exist in your mind and by talking about it you are participating in the survival of the concept. If we all stopped talking about God future generations would stop thinking about God – you and I can’t do that because we have already been indoctrinated with the idea of it. The God meme is in our minds whether we like it or not.
To answer your question, ‘What is God like?’, I’d say the God concept, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, which means God can be anything, everything, and nothing in particular.
(NB: Caps used for God only because we are referring to a singular thing, not because I wish to confer any importance to the label.)
PS: I'm lovin' your posts. Here's my embryonic blog, if you're interested: http://salonducybermuse.wordpress.com
Posted by: Jenny May Forsyth | October 29, 2012 at 03:12 AM
Funny - just opening one's mouth (so to speak) in an attempt to answer Blogger Brian's challenge is to invalidate whatever one has to say about the issue. (I think Blogger Brian was fully aware of this fact and was simply pandering - perhaps not so innocently?)
I, on the other hand, am absolutely 100 percent certain that there is no God - if by "God" you mean a totally separate Being whose involvement with Reality as we know it is completely optional - a matter of conscious decision.
I am also 100 percent certain that there was an indefinable "condition" that was the case prior to the "Big Bang" which gave rise to time, space, matter, etc., etc.
The uncompromising temporariness of all that seems to exist argues strongly for the fact that existence is no match for the condition which precedes it.
That inevitable "condition" is what I would call "God". It is at once glaringly obvious and completely enigmatic and non-understandable at the same time. It is what is referred to when you say "absolutely nothing".
Posted by: Willie R | October 29, 2012 at 05:47 AM
If the obnoxious temperament of Shaman Srivastava is typical of the Santmat people, Brian, I can't imagine how you remained with them for as long as you did.
Posted by: cc | October 29, 2012 at 09:28 AM
"My personal belief is that God exists as a concept in human thought, that it (s/he, whatever) is a construct of human consciousness."
---Could you give a specific definition of what God is? Define the concept, as you mentioned. We could then debate the existence of such God.
Posted by: Roger | October 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM
a satsangi: I enjoyed your comments, including the three word "God is consciousness." I just wanted to point out the difference between an abstraction/concept (god) and lived experience (consciousness). Equating the two doesn't make sense. It's like saying "love is red roses." Poetic, but not founded in substantial reality.
jenny: good thoughts. They fit with my response above about concepts. Yes, "god" is real in the same sense that lots of other human notions are real -- existent as neurons firing in brains. But this is a different sort of real than something which exists apart from human consciousness.
Willie R: yes, I'll admit to some not-so-hidden motivations in writing this post. I wanted to see if follow-up questions on the "Does God exist?" question elicit more detailed, or more fuzzy, responses.
Usually, if someone has had a genuine meaningful experience, they're able and willing to supply more details about it. (I can bore people for a long time about my new longboarding passion, if they make the mistake of asking me about it.) But with "God," because this is an abstraction, people tend to shut down when you press for details. This shows the difference between (1) life and (2) thoughts about life.
cc: most Sant Mat devotees are pleasant and personable, just like most people everywhere. But religious dogmatism does make jerks more jerk'y. It feeds the flames of whatever negative qualities they have. Self-righteousness and intolerance often get elevated into virtues, since "faith" is wrongly viewed as holding onto crazy opinions no matter the evidence against them.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM
"with "God," because this is an abstraction, people tend to shut down when you press for details. This shows the difference between (1) life and (2) thoughts about life."
What it shows me is how our need to be rooted in some notion is ruthlessly exploited by religion.
Posted by: cc | October 29, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Brian. I respect subjective realities and I think that whatever you believe is ok. Cause there is no objective truth.
And a satsangi is doing a decent job expressing some interest thoughts..
The following are proved scientifically:
1) Science and logic have intrinsic limits. So there will be things that will never be explained completely by scientific logic.
2) There are areas in physics that are almost metaphysical like quantum mechanics and cannot be analyzed with the logical tools you are using to explain everything.
3)Neuroscience is a bit infantile. Lots of research work needs to be done. In order to discover conciousness or soul you must know how to search for them. Or you must define them.
Posted by: Pythagoras | October 29, 2012 at 03:13 PM
Do i believe that God exists 100%? Yes. Do i know that God exists 100%? No.
Hope that answers your question.
Posted by: david r | October 30, 2012 at 09:07 AM
@ Willi: At the risk of derailing the conversation, I’m going to paraphrase Brian’s original question: Are you 100% absolutely sure, without doubt, that the Big Bang happened as an actuality? How is it that you believe it to be so, since it has not been proven (the best that can be deduced from the ‘evidence’ is that it is a possibility – there are many other possibilities), yet you refute the existence of a god, which also has not been proven? What’s the difference?
@ Roger: I’m afraid ‘concept’ is the best definition you’re going to get from me. Concepts are nebulous. The detail of them is subjective and relative to the mind of the conceptualiser and mutable according to the changing conditions of said mind. I don’t ponder the nature of God, or gods, therefore I haven’t hone my concept into any sort of definite shape, nor do I wish to do so – life’s too short.
You’ve hit on a good point, though. Before having a meaningful discussion of a subject it is first advisable for each party to understand what the others understand by that concept, otherwise people tend to make assumptions, usually by projecting their own definition onto others.
@ Brian: secular dogmatics (if you don’t mind me using the word as a noun in this instance) are also jerky, self-righteous and intolerant.
@ (don’t know) unfortunately, just about all people in authority ruthlessly exploit people’s minds, as does the advertising industry. That’s the Machevellian culture we live in and it’s got nothing to do with religion.
@ Pythagoras: you speak sense.
All-in-all, I don’t think it matters if whether people believe in a god or gods or fairies or whatever. So what? And why should they have to justify their beliefs? I find this God obsession bizarre. The people who seem most obsessed and hot-under-the-collar about it are atheists. They can be as evangelical as religious enthusiasts. Here in the UK Richard Dawkins is their champion and he gets quite hysterical. He claims to be a scientist, yet the fact that he believes, dogmatically and aggressively, in something that science has neither proved nor disproved means his viewpoint is unscientific. I don’t think that’s it’s a problem to have an unscientific belief, it’s just that he (and his ilk) claim that it IS scientific. Actually, it’s prejudiced, illogical and irrational (because it does not satisfy science’s own criteria for ascertaining proof).
Posted by: Jenny | October 30, 2012 at 09:59 AM
Proof that God exists:
God is the non-dual one. The All Alone. The One beyond a second. That which alone is.
So if there is only one, we would have to name that God if we were to give names.
The question of God's existence can only come up when we postulate, believe or feel that there are somehow “two.” If there is “me”, “you”, and a “million others”, then the question of God arises.
How can there be more than one? How can there be division?
The only way there can be more than one is through “thinking mind”. “Thinking” (mind) divides everything. There is no way to create the experience of division without mind.
Even now any mind reading these words is looking for a way to create division. A way to prove the opposite. A way to contradict this. A point of separation. That is all minds do.
Since there can be no division without mind. And since without division “all is one”. And since the “all one”, the single alone must be God, then therefore without mind there is only God.
Since the mind is like a knife which can only cut and divide, the above argument is almost like pulling back the curtain and on stage is a naked embarrassed person. Awareness ends up realizing the uselessness of creating division as a method of discovering truth and thinking can only create division. When one actually sees this, the love affair with thinking is done. It is done. Discarded. Realized as useless in the truth business.
Then you no longer attempt to use a knife to bring about unity because you can see that it can only cut and create division.
Those interested in unity end up throwing away knives.
Others futilely try to discover unity by dividing and cutting with the knife (mind). A project that would last forever and never be done.
Posted by: 2 months left | October 30, 2012 at 10:08 AM
"Here in the UK Richard Dawkins is their champion and he gets quite hysterical. He claims to be a scientist, yet the fact that he believes, dogmatically and aggressively, in something that science has neither proved nor disproved means his viewpoint is unscientific"
You do know that Dawkins isn't making the claim that God exists or doesn't exist. They say the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. Technically he is an agnostic, but for some reason agnostics call themselves atheists these days, which is rather bizarre.
Of course, if the likes of Dawkins went around saying he was agnostic he wouldn't be much of an opponent to Christians and Muslims in the debate.
Posted by: david r | October 30, 2012 at 10:30 AM
2 months left, your comment is pleasingly poetic. Not quite up to Rumi, but somewhat along the same lines.
Unity/oneness is a nice thought. Heck, I spent years writing a book called "Return to the One," so I'm big on One. So are scientists, in their search for a singular Theory of Everything.
But the evident fact is that we live in a world of manyness. Yes, everything is interconnected. There's an unbroken chain of causes and effects that link me, and you, and everything back to the unitary moment of the big bang.
However, your claim that "god" is "one alone" is a religious belief, not demonstrable fact. Your god is monistic rather than monotheistic. Otherwise your theology is as dogmatic as Christianity or Islam. Not for me, but you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Sinners repent for tis never too late too enter into the Kingdom of the Lord!
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
Why is that something ordered to any extent at all?
Why has that ordered tending towards an understanding itself?
The odds on any of these happening are astronomically small, downright implausible to the extent of impossible, and yet they all happened. Are these not miracles? Is God not the miracle maker?
Why do we all have experiences that we realise are so utterly profound that they transcend any form of expressible undertanding on this earthly realm?
And why did God make woman have such fantastic funbags?
Ours is not to reason why, but just do and die.
Posted by: Righteous Regie | October 30, 2012 at 02:31 PM
"...you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe."
Yes, but why should this entitlement extend to the right to preach and prevaricate in the name of God? Belief is fine if you can keep it to yourself, but if you must infect others with it, you should apply for a license, pay a fee, and be subject to a secular government that doesn't suffer fools unprofitably.
Posted by: cc | October 30, 2012 at 03:34 PM
Some English speakers tend to fall into fuzzy language... a language of conflict … a language of absolute viewpoints …. a language of Objective Science that presupposes Divine Knowing.
Here is what I mean:
1) “your comment is pleasingly poetic.” --- fuzzy thinking... takes an “all knowing” viewpoint.
To you it may seem poetic, probably to most of the readers here it is pure hogwash, rubbish and a waste of electronic space. If you said, “to me, your comment is pleasingly poetic”... you avoid the irk many readers may feel when they think it's hogwash. Everyone can argue against it having been poetic … no one can argue against it having been poetic to you. It's not knit picking … it's the difference between agreement and disagreement.
2) “we live in a world of manyness.” --- fuzzy thinking ... untrue “universal” viewpoint.
You Brian live in a world of manyness. You are unable to speak for the world others may live in. In fact many people close their eyes … count how many beings are there ... and can only find one. Many people have actually never experienced anything but the experience of one being.
3) “your theology is dogmatic” --- fuzzy language.
To you it is dogmatic. Most here may agree but others may not be so sure about that and perhaps would not have elected someone else to speak for them.
Posted by: 2 months left | October 30, 2012 at 05:27 PM
2 months left, everybody experiences the world differently. Everybody. This is life.
My problem is with people who assume that their way of experiencing the world is more true than how other people experience the world. Experiences, like feelings of oneness, or liking a certain kind of music, are private and personal. They can't be questioned.
What CAN be questioned are assertions that someone's experience reflects an objective truth about the cosmos. So as I often say, if you want to claim "I feel...", no problem. However, if you say "I know..." then some demonstrable proof needs to be provided.
So far I've gotten no takers on the "I know God exists" claim. That's what I expected, because in the history of humans, no one has ever provided such proof.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I know God exists, because Love exists.
Posted by: Gaylord Esquire the 3rd | October 31, 2012 at 02:19 AM
A concept of God can exist. What is the concept of God's love? Please give some examples. Thanks GEIII.
Posted by: Roger | October 31, 2012 at 08:38 AM
Gaylord, I know God exists, because Strong Coffee exists. We're both believers in God! Praise love and praise caffeine!
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM
you are claiming that God does not exist with your statement that it is not possible to know.
Posted by: david r | October 31, 2012 at 01:55 PM
david r, I've never claimed that I'm 100% sure God doesn't exist. What I'm sure of is that there's no demonstrable proof, for sure nowhere close to 100%, that God exists.
It would be possible to know that God exists if there was demonstrable proof of God. However, usually it isn't possible to prove that something doesn't exist. The burden is on God-believers to prove their belief.
Posted by: Brian Hines | October 31, 2012 at 10:02 PM
The burden of proof is a cop out argument used by agnostics who think they are atheists or want to appear to be atheists who cannot disprove God.
Whoever came up with this ridiculous "burden of proof" argument should be sent to detention.
Posted by: david r | November 01, 2012 at 09:07 AM
david r, spend some time studying the scientific method. You'll find that modern science (ancient science too) is founded on the burden of proof argument you ridicule. There's many sources of information you can use to learn about scientific thinking. Here's a short version:
What is Science? (The Burden of Proof)
Pseudoscientists often say, "You can't prove I'm wrong; therefore, I'm right." The mistake that they are making is where they place the burden of proof. In the American court system (I know that it is different in other countries), you are considered "innocent until proven guilty." This means that it is the job of the prosecutor to prove the defendant guilty. Another way to say this is that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. In science, the burden of proof works in a similar way.
If I purpose a new hypothesis, say that flying unicorns exist, it is my job to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the person proposing the new idea. This is done for two reasons. If it was the job of scientists to disprove every claim that came their way, they would never have time to do anything else.
The other problem is that vague claims like the one above are logically impossible to disprove. All you can say is that they are extremely unlikely to exist. On the other hand proving that flying unicorns exist would be quite easy, all I have to do is find one that can be studied. If you hear a wacky idea, ask for evidence. Don't let them wiggle out of that by asking you, or anyone else, to prove them wrong.
Posted by: Brian Hines | November 01, 2012 at 09:17 AM
"I want to ask you, whoever you are, whoever might read this post, whether you are absolutely confident that God exists."
"Meaning, you don't just believe, hope, suspect, hypothesize, have faith that God exists. You're sure. And not just pretty sure. You're 100% sure. You've got no doubts about the reality of God."
I’ve got no doubts about the reality of God. So by your argument, I’m absolutely confident that God exists.
"Explain the reasons for your absolute surety about God's existence."
As I said, my lack of doubts is my explanans for my surety. I don’t have a reason for my lack of doubts; I just lack them.
"And while you're at it, tell us about the God that you know exists. What is he/she/it like?"
I can’t think of anything God is like. Nor can I say ‘what’ God is. I don’t even know that the term ‘what’ is applicable to God.
"Describe his/her/its characteristics."
Love. Although I hesitate to say that’s what God is, in any sort of declarative way. It sure seems that way to me, but it was only after I brought love to God, that ‘God is love’ had any sort of meaning for me. So from my perspective, I can’t really say “God is love,” but more that God engenders the feeling of love in me. Ditto with ‘God is one’ and all that stuff. It seems that way to me, but I really don’t know if that’s a result of the lens I’m looking through or an unmitigated vision of God. So if you want to conclude that I have doubts, or am not sure of God’s characteristics, I’m okay with that.
Posted by: john | November 03, 2012 at 11:14 PM
I am a believer that God exist. Read, God, I do exist by Gigi Vega. Most of her life she wasn't sure God existed and if there was a God did he know she existed? I love that book and it is worth your time to experience her experience. A very enjoyable read as she weaves you in, out and through her life's journey until she reaches adulthood. By the way, it's a true story, you'll love it! (Review on Amazon)
Posted by: Niya Soria | November 09, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Anything spoken and/or written down is relative truth. Nothing wrong with being a believer, that God exist. Just remember, you are in your belief and faith. I'm sure the book is enjoyable, and worth some time. However, how does one know they are experiencing Gigi's subjective experience?
Posted by: Roger | November 09, 2012 at 01:25 PM
I can't explain the universe by myself, meaning that I can't just look at everything and say the universe is this or that, I can't, I lack the knowledge, I'm an ignorant because there's not a single experiment of particle physics (a significant one) that I can test at home and verify by myself, but likewise I can't be completely sure that there's no God at all (or something similar to what we call God) for the same reason, I do not venture into saying something is absolute, so no, actually I'm not 100% sure of anything related to God, the universe and our existence, I'm not even sure that my existence is real, maybe the buddhist precepts explain who (if I can be called a who) am I or.. to put it clear, -what- I (if there's an objective thing that can be called an I) am...
So I'm like a Socratic guy. I think whoever admits anything about those topics as the ultimate proof that they can be a 100% sure is making a mistake, because you are closing your mind to buy one person's or a group of people's BS (using it like Robert Anton Wilson used to, for Belief System and BullShit)...
So there's my opinion on all this, don't live asking yourself about that, Marcus Aurelius beautifully put the matter to rest in one of his meditations: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Posted by: Adrian Mendoza | December 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM
David. "Here in the UK Richard Dawkins is their champion and he gets quite hysterical. He claims to be a scientist, yet the fact that he believes, dogmatically and aggressively, in something that science has neither proved nor disproved means his viewpoint is unscientific." - You misquote Richard Dawkins - first I would say he is passionate rather than 'hysterical' about science. Secondly he has never said he believes there is no God because science proves it, on the contrary Prof. Dawkins goes to great pains to explain that the probability of there not being a God far outweighs the probability of there being one as described in religious texts. On that basis he will err on the side of probabilty rather than take the word of iron age tribesman. That is a very scientific approach.
Posted by: Neil | April 24, 2013 at 01:46 AM
It is scientifically proven that more than 96% of our planet is controlled by an invincible power known as the black energy and the black mass, also the big bang did not just happen something surely caused it, planets moon sun and everything having an oval shape is proof that these are works of art. Although some non believers claim god does not exist they still cannot prove it. So considering all of these facts,why take a risk? Just keep your trust in god but don't think of god as some person or figure, god is the power that's balancing the universe and yes he will respond with blessings if your throw your faith on him.
Posted by: Shabir | April 26, 2014 at 05:26 PM
We all need to put our trust and faith in our savior lord jesus because at some point and time in our lifes we will call for his help his blessing I can guarantee it! Don't let scientists and evolutionist blind your minds the Lord is very real! What do you guys think we are just born then we die and that's it huh? All she wrote wrong!
Posted by: tmack | June 26, 2015 at 01:11 AM
Absolutely God exists. Follow Moore's law to its conclusion and we end up with a supremely intelligent being. Statistically, what are the chances that we are the first civilization to invent higher intelligence? Isn't it likely that another pond of ooze beat us to the punchline? That being said, what is to say a supremely intelligent being hasn't been the guiding factor in our orgin as a species because that intelligence hasn't existed for eons before our world existed?
If all that happened, why would God wait until a species created super computers before he revealed his plan?
Instead, create the plan early. Let those who see understand. Peace and mercy. Forgiveness and faith. Do unto the least of these and you do unto me.
Posted by: Njr | May 22, 2016 at 09:50 PM
So, tell me, why god created Jesus ? There was life before him, how they would know all "rules" that is in the bible, without the bible ? GOD, was created by a human, therefore was his mind, like the big bang, god was created by us, by our mind, if you were born, and no one have told you about god, bible all other source of entertainment, how would you came to a explanation that how the universe was made ? your mind was blind by other, you have to make your own history, stop reading blogs, leave the internet, go find your own way, your own method to how the universe was made, all that have today was created by other human ! free our mind
Sorry my mistakes, i'm from Brazil !
Posted by: Lucas D. | June 06, 2018 at 07:30 AM