Please provide me with the evidence that God exists!

I have put some thought to what would convert me to any religion – and I have broken this into two parts part i) Conclusive and part ii) Not Conclusive

Conclusive – prove me with conclusive evidence that matches this criteria, and I would convert to any religion that supports the existence of God right away.

a)      Verify, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

Answer: How do you prove what was manufactured and what is real?

For example if the bible says that on the first day of the first month 2010 the pillars of the earth will shake, and part of the new world will be lost to the sea, and then on the 1st January 2010 an earthquake causes the California to fall into the sea – I will convert on the spot. However the following conditions apply:

Answer: I should not ask, but can’t help, are you serious about this? I don’t believe for one moment that you would not think of an excuse to wriggle out of that commitment even if I somehow managed to make an exact replication of your demand.

1) If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled like Nostodarmous or a horoscope – this does not count. It must be detailed in meaning and language.

Answer: Since the Bible is the final authority, not me, I’ll let the Bible talk about the issue of prophecy.

A.)   There are false prophets who will be able to trick people into believing them

B.)   There are true prophets. You need an understanding of Biblical principles of discernment to understand this. This is not hidden but you have to refer to the Bible.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  19 Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. 21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? 23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

Matthew 24: 24-25 24 For false Christ’s and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.  25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

2) If the prophecy is trivial – this doesn’t count. Anyone can predict a flood, plague, drought – the prophecy must describe something unlikely, surprising or unique.

Answer: This is either a deliberate distortion of what the Bible says or a massive misunderstanding of what the Bible gives as an example. Try reading the Bible without being biased against it, even if you pretend for a moment that you are objective.

3) If the prophecy is self fulfilling, i.e. if the mere fact that prophecy exists causes it to become true, for example the Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel because the bible said that they would – this is not a prediction, this is an instruction which people followed, because they had a belief in the bible. The prophecy can not be one that people could stage.

Answer: I love that you give this example. This is brilliant as it shows how little atheists understand when such rules are applied.

a.)    Israel was without a homeland for almost 2000 years

b.)    The fact is the UN agreed that Israel should have a homeland which is a miracle in itself.

c.)    Israel was nearly annihilated on several occasions throughout its history; this proves first the opposition to God that exists in this world and is an attempt to destroy God’s promises to Abraham.

d.)    The fact that Israel has been preserved proves that God is faithful

e.)    Nazis and the British did not make it easy for Israel to return to their homeland, if you remember from our recent history, ships loaded with Jews heading for Palestine were forbidden to dock in Israel by the then British rulers.

f.)      It took the death of 6 million Jews for the world to allow the creation of Israel

So please don’t cheapen this achievement. In fact if you look at the 6 day war in Israel that involved all the surrounding nations ganging up against Israel, and on top of that you will find that America was no help to Jews, this in itself is a remarkable proof that God looks after his people.

4) If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can not be shown to have preceded the event , if the prophecy predicts an event, and the happening of that event can not be independently verified. For example Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many old testament prophecies but the authors of the new testament obviously had access to the old testament prophecies – so they do not count.

Answer: Again, this shows how biased against the Bible you are. This is either ignorant or not knowing information such as:

a.)    Apostles could not artificially manufacture the birth place of Jesus.

b.)    The death of Christ is taken away from anyone’s hands otherwise even the Roman army would have had to be involved in the conspiracy.

c.)    He was hung on a cross. This kind of execution did not exist when this was prophesised.

d.)    If you read Isaiah 53 you will find that Jesus was not looked at with favour, his face was distorted due to beatings and he was killed for our sins. The fact is this happened on Passover and this is the holiday that symbolises the redemption of Israel. You will find more of such precise details, not wishy washy stuff as you suggest.

Genuine divine Bible prophecy

Prophecy is foretelling an event in such detail before it happens so as to necessarily require divine guidance. The Bible is a book containing hundreds of detailed prophecies. There are, for example, well over 60 distinct predictions in regard to our divine Saviour Jesus Christ. Here is a sample of just 10 prophecies that foretold the crucifixion of Christ. Not only were the predictions made 1000 years before Christ came from heaven to earth, but they were made over 500 years before crucifixion was first used anywhere in the world as a form of capital punishment! Crucifixion didn’t exist when the prophecies were made.

A scientist picked out 48 such prophecies and determined that the probability of one man randomly fulfilling them all is 1 in 10 to the exponent of 157. That is one followed by 157 zeros! Your chances of winning a typical lottery jackpot is about 1 in 108. (100,000,000) Yet, Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies!

For more information go to post on this blog listing many more such incidences:

5) Finally if the prophecy is only one in a thousand failures, anyone can throw up random prophecies and eventually one will come true – there has to be several to prove the reliability of the source (i.e. the bible). These conditions are reasonable and are only what be expected from any prophet that has genuine gift.

Answer: Refer to answer 4 and you will find consistency and accuracy in one place.

b) Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time of writing.
If the bible or any other religious text contains some piece of scientific knowledge that the people of the time could not have possibly have known, but is now known to be true – this would be highly convincing to me. However, it is not conclusive, as the Greeks did predict atoms etc (I might add that the greeks did this independently of religious dogma). Therefore it must be something that is so counter intuitive that the odds against guessing it would be staggering. For example what if Jesus has said something like this “my disciples, I decree that energy, is mass multiplied by the speed of gods light and multiplied unto itself.” Of course the people at the time would have been baffled, but just think how many souls would have been saved by such scientific knowledge (by the logic of the religious, god created everything, so he created science – why would he want his prophets to communicate something that would be useful to save lives). Just like the point a above such statements would need to be independently verified, and proved to have been part of the original text included in the bible.

Answer: This is wrong on a few counts;

a.)    You demand proof. You and I are creatures and don’t have rights that we can demand, we have rights that we are given. However, there is plenty of evidence of both God’s existence and his involvement in his creation.

b.)    Your proof would have confused the hearers of the time and would serve no purpose other than to convince future generations. This could have been a significant problem for many millions who lived before the time this scientific discovery would have been made. And God is not a God of confusion.

c.)    Christianity, and the Bible in particular, is not a scientific handbook, despite the popular belief that it is.  It deals with the salvation of humankind but if you want an intriguing fact, the Bible does say that the Earth is hung on nothing in the book of Job.

I will include some more taken Answers in Genesis web page, this is by Physicist Dr Jason Lisle

Original document is from :

In this chapter, we will explore some passages of Scripture which touch upon the topics of astronomy and astrophysics. It is interesting that many of the Bible’s statements about astronomy went against the generally accepted teachings of the time. Undoubtedly, many of these verses would have seemed counterintuitive, and may have been difficult to believe when they were first written. However, modern science has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.

The Earth Is Round

The earth

The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round.

Another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10. This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round.

One of the great delights of observing the moon through a small telescope is to look at its terminator, especially during the first or third quarter phases when the terminator is directly down the middle of the moon. The craters are most easily seen at this boundary since the sun is at a low angle and casts very long shadows there. The moon looks particularly three-dimensional when viewed through a telescope during these phases; it is clear that the moon is a sphere—not a flat disk (see photo below).

The moon

For the earth, the terminator occurs not on a cratered rocky surface, but primarily on water (since the earth’s surface is 70 percent water). Job 26:10 suggests a “God’s eye” view of the earth. This biblical passage would be nonsense if the earth were flat, since there would be no true terminator; there is no line to “step over” that separates the day from night on a flat surface. Either it is day everywhere or night everywhere on a hypothetical “flat earth.” However, the earth does indeed have a boundary between light and darkness which is always a circle since the earth is round.

Curiously, many astronomy textbooks credit Pythagoras (c. 570–500 B.C.) with being the first person to assert that the earth is round.1 However, the biblical passages are older than this. Isaiah is generally acknowledged to have been written in the 700s B.C. and Job is thought to have been written around 2000 B.C. The secular astronomers before the time of Pythagoras must have thought the Bible was wrong about its teaching of a round earth, yet the Bible was exactly right. It was the secular science of the day that needed to be corrected.

The Earth Floats In Space

A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7 which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This might evoke an image of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. This verse expresses (in a poetic way) the fact that the earth is unsupported by any other object—something quite unnatural for the ancient writers to imagine. Indeed, the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs on nothing, just as the Bible teaches.

The Expansion of the Universe

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong.

Balloon illustrationBalloon illustration

Most astronomers today believe that the universe is expanding. This expansion is a very natural result of the physics that Einstein discovered—general relativity. Moreover, there is observational evidence that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters (see creation in-depth box at the bottom); this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.

This effect can be illustrated with points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all points move farther away from each other (see illustration at left). If the entire universe were being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is exactly what they appear to be doing. It is interesting that the Bible recorded the notion of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

Conservation of mass-energy

A very important concept in physics is the conservation of energy. This principle states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. There are a lot of different kinds of energy; heat, light, sound, and electricity are all forms of energy. We can change one type of energy into another and we can move energy from one place to another, but the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and cannot be changed.

There is also a conservation principle of mass. Mass is the property of an object to resist a change in its motion. Things that possess a lot of mass are very heavy; things with little mass are light. We can move mass from place to place, and transform one kind of mass into another (by a chemical reaction for example), but, just like energy, mass cannot be created nor destroyed. So both mass and energy are conserved. In fact, Einstein was able to demonstrate that all energy possesses an equivalent mass, and vice versa. To put it another way, mass and energy are really the same thing manifesting in different ways. This is the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2. We can combine these principles into the conservation of mass-energy. Colloquially speaking, the amount of “stuff” in the universe is constant.

Conservation of mass-energy is exactly what we would expect on the basis of Scripture. First, the Bible indicates that no new material can come into existence. This is indicated in John 1:3 and Genesis 2:2. John 1:3 states that all things were made by God, and nothing has come into existence apart from Him. Furthermore, God ended His work of creation by the seventh day of the creation week, according to Genesis 2:2. Since only God can bring new things into existence from nothing, and since God ended His work of creation by the seventh day, no new material will come into existence today.

Second, the Bible suggests that nothing will cease to exist. This is because God is upholding all things by His sustaining power (Hebrews 1:3) and by Him all things consist (Colossians 1:17). Neither matter nor energy will cease to exist, because God is sustaining them, and since nothing new will come into existence, we can conclude that the amount of material in the universe is constant. Of course, the Bible makes room for miracles—supernatural interventions by God, but miracles (by definition) do not conform to the laws of physics; they are exceptions by their very nature. The universe itself obeys the law of conservation of mass-energy.

The number of the stars

The Bible often uses the “stars of heaven” to represent an extremely large quantity. Genesis 22:17 teaches that God would multiply Abraham’s descendants “as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore.” Genesis 32:12 makes it clear that this represents a number which is uncountable by humans: “the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.”2 These are excellent analogies. Clearly the sand of the sea and the stars in the universe cannot be counted exactly by humans, though of course, they can be roughly estimated. Interestingly, the two quantities come out to about the same order of magnitude: 1022, or ten billion trillion, give or take a factor of ten or so.3 (For other verses using stars as an illustration of large numbers, see Deuteronomy 1:10 and 10:22.)

It was not always believed that the stars were so numerous. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 150) cataloged 1,022 stars in his work The Almagest.4 Many astronomers believed that these were the only stars that existed, even though Ptolemy never claimed that his catalogue was exhaustive.5 Of course, there are many more stars than this number. The total number of stars that can be distinctly seen (from both hemispheres under ideal, dark sky conditions) with the unaided eye is around 10,000. The precise number depends on how good one’s vision is.

Today, with the help of modern science, we have an even greater appreciation of just how innumerable the stars are. Powerful telescopes allow us to see stars much too distant and faint to be seen without optical aid. Even binoculars reveal countless multitudes of stars that cannot be seen by the unaided eye. It is estimated that our galaxy alone contains over 100 billion stars. Astronomers believe that there are more galaxies in the visible universe than there are stars in our own. Each of these galaxies would have hundreds of millions to trillions of stars. Modern science certainly confirms Genesis 22:17.

The Ordinances of Heaven and Earth

The Bible teaches that the universe obeys physical laws—“the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The universe is neither haphazard nor arbitrary; nature conforms to logical, mathematical relationships set in place by the Lord.

The laws of physics and chemistry are examples of these ordinances of heaven and earth. The clockwork precision of the planets as they orbit the sun is due to their strict obedience to God’s ordinances. The stars and planets are never late nor are they early. They do not fail to appear in their proper place at the proper time (Isaiah 40:26).

The laws of nature are consistent and logical, because the Creator is consistent and logical. We can trust that the same physics which worked yesterday will also work today. This principle is foundational to the scientific process. The very reason that science is possible is because the universe consistently obeys simple mathematical formulae. Furthermore, God created our minds with an impressive (though finite) ability to interpret the data around us, and draw logical conclusions. We are therefore able to discover (at least to some extent) the ordinances of the universe by observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning. Once we understand the nature of these physical laws, we can use them to make accurate predictions about the future—such as computing the positions of the planets in advance.

Both earth and the rest of the physical universe (“heaven and earth”) obey the laws of nature. Many ancient cultures believed that the universe beyond earth was the realm of the gods. Indeed, the planets were often worshiped as gods. In reality, the planets are simply created objects which obey the same laws of nature which we can study on earth. In an incredible leap of insight, the biblical creationist Isaac Newton realized that the moon orbits the earth because the moon is pulled by earth’s gravity. The moon “falls” just like any other object; earth’s gravity deflects the moon’s path through space (see the in-depth box below). Since the moon has a tangential (perpendicular to the line from the earth to itself) velocity, it falls “around” the earth rather than straight down. Newton also realized that the planets orbit the sun for the same reason; the sun’s gravity keeps them in their orbit. The planets and stars are not gods; they are mere creations (Genesis 1:14–19) in nature which obey the Lord’s ordinances.

Astronomy confirms the Bible

Galaxy Centaurus A
Galaxy Centaurus A (Image taken from the Hubble Space Telescope)
Trifid Nebula M20
Trifid Nebula M20

Today, the reliability of the Bible is being increasingly attacked. Can we really trust the Bible in our modern age of technology and science? As we have seen, science is not an enemy of the Bible. On the contrary, modern science has been able to confirm much of what the Bible teaches about astronomy. Many of the biblical teachings which would have been difficult to believe in the past (such as an expanding universe) are now accepted in science textbooks. This is an important lesson to learn. Ideas in secular science can change from time to time, but the Bible has demonstrated itself to be consistently true without the need for change.

Although much of secular astronomy has come to line up with the Bible, there are still a number of differences. What are we to do when the current consensus among scientists is at odds with the teachings of Scripture? Have we learned the lesson of history? Are we going to reject (or modify our “interpretation” of) the straightforward teachings of Scripture in light of the latest secular scientific claims? Or shall we trust that the Bible will prevail again as it always has in the past?

It may help to remember that our modern age is just another point in history. Future generations (should the Lord delay His return) will no doubt look back at our time as we look back to cultures of the past. Will students in some future classroom look back with amusement at some of the “scientific” beliefs and misunderstandings of our time, the same way we smile at the scientific mistakes of ancient cultures? Will they learn about the “Great Folly”—the nearly universal belief in the big bang and molecules-to-man evolution which reigned during the 20th and early 21st centuries? Perhaps future Christians will wonder at the rampant compromise so prevalent in our time: Why did Christians of the past compromise with the secular ideas of the big bang and billions of years?

In the next chapters, we will explore points of disagreement between the straightforward teachings of the Bible and the current opinions of the majority of astronomers. If the Bible really is the Word of God, as it claims to be, then it cannot fail. Inevitably, the secular opinion will collapse, and the Bible will again be vindicated in each of these points of disagreement.

Creation In-Depth:

The Hubble Law: What Does it Mean?

Nearly all galaxies in the universe are “redshifted.” That means that the wavelengths of the light they emit have been increased. The light has been stretched out since it was emitted—it is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (since red light has a longer wavelength than blue).

Doppler effect

Doppler Effect

There are several ways in which light can be redshifted. Motion is one way; this is called the “Doppler effect.” When a car passes by, its sound changes pitch because the sound waves are either compressed or stretched out depending on whether the car is approaching or moving away.

Likewise, the wavelength of light is changed when the source is moving. The effect is not as easy to see with light as it is to hear with sound. Since the speed of light is so much greater than the speed of sound, objects must be moving very fast in order to see the Doppler effect.

Gravity can also affect the wavelength of light. Strong gravitational fields slow the passage of time in accordance with Einstein’s relativity. This means that light emitted near a massive object will be redshifted. Expansion of the universe can also cause light to be redshifted. As the universe expands, any light traveling within it will also be stretched out along with the universe. The longer the light has been traveling, the more redshifted it will be.

Astronomers can determine the distances to galaxies, and are also able to determine the redshifts of those galaxies. Observations have shown that the redshift of a galaxy is proportional to its distance from our galaxy. The more distant a galaxy is, the more its light is shifted toward the red; this is called the “Hubble law.” Most astronomers believe that expansion of the universe is the most likely cause for the redshifts, because it would naturally lead to this result: more distant galaxies would be more redshifted because their light has been traveling longer and has thus been expanded by a greater amount. The “Hubble law” is the evidence—distant galaxies show greater redshifts than nearby galaxies. The interpretation is that universal expansion has caused these redshifts.

Recently, some astronomers have questioned this interpretation. Might there be another cause of these redshifts? This is certainly possible. However, there are some good reasons to think that universal expansion is the correct interpretation of the Hubble law. First of all, a static universe is nearly impossible according to general relativity. The laws of physics indicate that the universe must either be expanding or collapsing, so we would expect the universe to be expanding (or possibly collapsing) on the basis of known physics—even if we had no observations of redshifts at all. Secondly, other known ways of producing redshifts would not necessarily produce a Hubble law relation. Expansion of the universe naturally produces the result that more distant galaxies are more redshifted—all on the basis of known physics. I would suggest that expansion of the universe is the best explanation of the data at the moment, though other interpretations are possible.

An expanding universe does not necessarily support the big bang. Just because the universe is apparently expanding does not mean that it was ever infinitely small; nor does this indicate that a big bang caused the expansion. It is also important to note that the big bang did not predict any such expansion. On the contrary, the big bang was invented to explain such expansion within the framework of naturalism. The Bible, however, did refer to an expanding universe—long before secular astronomers came to accept that idea.

The Law of Gravity

Consider the law of gravitational attraction: F = GMm/r2.

Here, the force of gravity (F) on an object of mass (m) produced by a nearby mass (M) at a distance (r) is related by this simple equation. The parameter (G) is the gravitational constant of the universe; it sets the overall strength of gravity. G is a very tiny number, which is why gravity is weaker than the three other known fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force). If creation were not true—if the universe had no designer—then why should gravity obey such a simple, logical formula? For that matter, why should gravity obey any formula at all? The law of gravity suggests a law-giver; it is consistent with creation.

Of course, many of the laws of nature can be derived mathematically from other laws. For example, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion can be derived from Newton’s laws of gravity and motion (classical physics). And (it is thought that) the reason gravity works the way it does is because mass “curves spacetime.” Essentially, space and time are treated as a “fabric” which is distorted by the presence of mass; the mass curves spacetime, and then spacetime tells the mass how to move. Many laws of nature depend on other laws which depend on still others, and so on. Ultimately, there must be a foundational set of principles which exist for no other reason than that God has so decreed. Ultimately, the fundamental laws of nature require a law-giver.


  1. Snow, The Dynamic Universe, p. 44; W. Hartmann and C. Impey, Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994), 5th edition, p. 44; T. Snow and K. Brownsberger, Universe: Origins and Evolution (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997), p. 46. Back
  2. Of course, God can count the number of stars, and in fact does so according to Psalm 147:4. God has a name for every star, even though human beings cannot even count the number of stars. Back
  3. The order of magnitude of the estimate can vary slightly depending on the exact assumptions involved in the calculation. Back
  4. Hartmann and Impey, Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey, p. 52. Back
  5. D. Faulkner, Universe by Design (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004), p. 15. Back

c) Miraculous occurrences especially if brought about by prayer.
For example if cities condemned by preachers as sinful tended to explode in flames. If glowing lights or auroras appeared around believers to protect them from harm. Or if atheists and only atheists got struck down by lightening – this would be compelling proof to me that there is a god. However, it doesn’t have to be so dramatic, even minor miracles would do if it could be proved that they were invoked by prayer. Jesus told the Christians that they should be able to work miracles via the use of prayer – so this should be easy to prove, I have a genetic disease – pray for that to be healed, and I will believe you and convert.


a.)    If this was to be the case you would be dead too.

b.)    You misunderstand the meaning of miracle. By definition, this is something that happens rarely otherwise it will stop being a miracle by its own definition.

c.)    Miracles have purpose. They are not simply a form of God’s exhibitionism which is very disrespectful both to God and to those who worship God.

d.)    There are plenty of people who have commented on miracles, including me to you, yet you refuse to believe. Why should God consider your request, read Luke 16 and see what Jesus said about people that demand signs:

Luke 16:27 And he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28  for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. 30 And he said, No, father Abraham, but if one should go to them from the dead, they would repent. 31 And he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even though one rose from the dead.

d) Any direct manifestation of the divine
I am not that hard to convert to, if god talks to me directly, I would believe in him. Mosses has many conversations with God, so why doesn’t god speak to individuals in the same way today. If god did speak to me directly using human language (i.e. my mother tongue English) – I would believe instantly.


a.)    You could always use another explanation to rationalise this event so no I don’t agree.

b.)    That is not how it works. The Bible specifically says “Seek and you will find”, not to expect and it will fall down from the sky.

c.)    See the example above (Last part of answer d)
e) Alien’s that believe in God
I know this is a bit odd, but if one day we met a bunch of intelligent Alien’s that we could communicate with, and they had a similar story of god, then this would be convincing. It does raise some issues though for theist’s – does Jesus have to be recreated in biology of that Alien species and die for them and be resurrected… may be… if this is documented anywhere, and the human race discovers this – I think I might convert.

Answer: Whilst there are a few issues with this, they are only very limited. First of all from your previous comments you claim that there are no aliens so this would be therefore a futile exercise.

a.)    Aliens may not have succumbed to sin so no need to die again

b.)    We don’t know if there are any aliens

c.)    There would always be “plausible” explanations as to why they had an identical story, something about DNA or the same kind of evolution etc.

ii) Not Conclusive stuff – show me any of these points below and I might not convert straight away but I would certainly re-consider my notion of atheism, and look into the religion further.

Answer: This is your responsibility not mine. I’m called to preach not to convert or persuade – that is the work of God. This is what the Bible teaches and anything to the contrary is in opposition to the Bible.

a) A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book – to meet this criteria, the text must be without error or self contradiction. A book of such perfection is humanly possible, so therefore it is not totally convincing, but it would non the less be impressive enough for me to have reasonable doubt in my atheism.

Answer: Look at the Bible closely and you will find that it meets your criteria specifically.

b) A religion without internal disputes or factions – it seems reasonable to me that if there was a god who was supreme, and created man by design, he would be able to give us the instructions in the holy book that could only be interpreted in one conclusive way – thereby preventing dispute wars etc. Therefore if a religion was true, no factions or sects would exist within it – and all members of that religion would speak with one voice regarding ethical and theological issues.

Answer: This is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, so by definition is impossible. You are asking the Bible to contradict itself. Human nature demands that we bring our evil with us wherever we go. Being a Christian does not make you perfect; we are redeemed sinners not perfect in every/any way.

c) If you can show me a religion that has never taken part in or performed atrocities – if a religion preaches peace, and all its followers have in acted this instruction – then this would be compelling – and a good reason for me to convert.

Answer: As per the answer above, don’t confuse sinful human nature with God’s perfect instructions. Also don’t forget that we have a great capacity for murder and love. Whilst they may be contradictory on the surface, they also show a complexity of human nature. We are in a war between good and evil and it is happening all around us. What we see is the strong oppressing the weak, using any means to justify their actions. This is called cunning, deceit and trickery, but note for every copy that imitates the original only proves that there is a faithful and good original. Let me illustrate, some 15 years ago I was in Brighton in a bank when a young looking stranger approached me to sell me a brand new Rolex watch.  I refused knowing that this was too good to be true and nobody sells a real Rolex for £45 but that did not stop me from believing that there are genuine real Rolex watches that cost thousands of pounds. Otherwise I would look silly if I made such claim.

[“For the avoidance of doubt the following things would not convince me to convert, to date all the evidence I have seen falls within this category:”]
1) Speaking in tongues of other pseudo miracles (faints etc) – anything that can be explained by the power of suggestion, peer pressure, illusion, placebo effect etc, most definatley does not count, as it makes my bullshit detector go off the scale.

Answer: I would not be persuaded with these either as I am very much against TV evangelists; this is not how God works in the Bible.

2) Courageous acts of kindness or braveness to not count either. Biblical miracles are not about the circumstantial – they make a clear difference between what is physically possible and what is not – i.e. booming voices from the sky, parting of seas – show me evidence of the same and I would more than likely convert etc.

Answer: Again you demand proofs that are historical not testable in a laboratory, so this will not pass as a genuine attempt to discover. These are only active according to the Bible as a last resort i.e. God is not a cosmic exhibitionist. Where there is a genuine need he may act.

3) Seeing pictures of the virgin Mary in rocks, or statues crying bloody tears or milk is not impressive.

Answer: Agree
4) Nor is faith healing. Working up people into a highly suggestible and manipulability state does not count either – any showman or good salesman can do this.

Answer: Agree, but note that we could not be dismissive of healings either. You would have to have proof to the contrary which I would guess you do not have.
5) If someone could heal severed limbs without medical science – i.e. by just touching the person – that would be convincing, and I would convert, probably on the spot.

Answer: As per above answer to question 4.
6) Conversion stores, do not count – I am not interested in people who converted from being a non-believer to a believer, because they interpreted god speaking to them in some bizarre sequence of events – i.e. circumstantial visions, dreams and the such like.

Answer: So you have your own criteria that you want to impose on God, and nothing else can be used by God. Is that not hypocritical and deliberately ignoring the possibility of God working in a normal way?

7) The bible code does not count either – sceptics have used the same techniques to ‘predict’ fictional accounts in works of fiction like Moby Dick and such like – this is pseudo science.

Answer: I don’t believe in the “Bible code” and neither do many Christians which is related to Cabala which is used by the Jewish sect and not accepted by majority of Jews either.

[“Intelligent design – is not evidence, and was not even used as evidence until it evolution gained popularity, and religious people twisted it to their own ends. I am familiar with evolution and my understanding of it is similar to those who work in the field professionally – study evolution in great detail first with an open mind, before debating this with me.”]

So I’m supposed to take your word for it? You’ve got to be kidding me. I have studied this subject for years, not just a few months but I would not show such arrogance to demand others conform to my view just because I was with the majority. As I said to you before, there is plenty of information on this blog so look at it and then you are free to challenge it. There is nothing hidden here.


Defend the word


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Archeology, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Hedonism, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Please provide me with the evidence that God exists!

  1. misunderstoodranter says:

    I have moved your comments to yet another post as it otherwise just becomes to long to follow.


    Defend the word

  2. I have moved your comments to yet another post as it otherwise just becomes to long to follow.


    Defend the word

  3. Here’s the proof that GOD exists, “( LOOK IN THE MIRROR )!” When you look within yourself you should discover that you have a SOUL; the information processing activity of your brain is self-evidence that you have a soul. Just like you used you soul to identify, understand, and conclude that GOD does not exist, you can do the same to conclude that GOD does exist. GOD is the 3rd Element of Existence, there is matter, there is energy, and then there is the Invisible-Soul that saturates into matter and energy to tell it what to do. Just like your soul can develp and define your individual character and personality, so does the Soul of GOD develop, design, and define the entire universe. When you look in the mirror, you will see a Living-Soul, that ha the accountability and responsibility to do the things that GOD would do, if GOD was here. The Bible is the Model and the Example, given to Man, of how to use the knowledge of good and evil to do what is right.

  4. Well put I like your argument, thanks very much for your thoughts.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  5. misunderstoodranter says:

    An invisible soul – are you sure about that? I see people’s souls all the time – and I can assure you it is not invisible. In fact this is why you see it in the mirror, because the soul is who you are – your conscience, your personality.

    Did you know that many great apes, have the ability to recognise themselves in the mirror?

    Did you know that children under the age of 2 are thought not to be really self aware – i.e. they do not recognise themselves in the mirror.

    So if the bible is a model and example given to man – then it must be OK for me to stone people to death for breaking its rules?

    “Deuteronomy 22:16-21 (New International Version)
    16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

  6. Misunderstoodranter: [An invisible soul – are you sure about that? I see people’s souls all the time – and I can assure you it is not invisible. In fact this is why you see it in the mirror, because the soul is who you are – your conscience, your personality.]

    Defend the word: Where is your evidence for this? I only say this as in your materialistic world you always demand such things.

    Misunderstoodranter: [Did you know that many great apes, have the ability to recognise themselves in the mirror? Did you know that children under the age of 2 are thought not to be really self aware – i.e. they do not recognise themselves in the mirror.]

    Defend the word: So what is the inference we need to draw from this?

    Misunderstoodranter: [So if the bible is a model and example given to man – then it must be OK for me to stone people to death for breaking its rules?]

    Defend the word: I have addressed this question before with you, just think of this, in USA they use lethal injection, do you think this to be inappropriate, in many countries you will be killed including China if you are smuggling drugs. What is your answer to that??? You must not use your 21st century morality on historical books and even with your morality, we need to question it if this is subjective or objective. And what is the standard that we should use, and guess what you are against any standards are you not, as anything we have today in human rights could change tomorrow right??
    I like how you atheists like to point to the Old Testament and distort it without having any idea about the context. Standards have changed that is for sure but have facts that the only way to maintain farness and morality is still enshrined in laws. I particularly find things to be laughable when one hears of the personal standards that would replace Old Testament standards that frankly would not be workable. That kind of naivety shows why people continue to point out to limitations of the Old Testament. First of all no Jew is killed today because he or she is no virgin, secondly significant expansion of the law which were increased rather than decreased in standards by Jesus and his followers shows that Love is the way. As I said before what was right before may change today, but the fact that we have at the minimum attempt to maintain civility and law should be recognised and we should not forget that least of all my and your standards are often much more negative and destructive for the society.

  7. misunderstoodranter says:

    DTW: [So what is the inference we need to draw from this?]

    It means that animals show evidence of having a conscience, they recognise themselves. It means that humans probably do not recognise themselves when they are born and up to a certain age – implying that the personality is dependent on some sort of physical development that is not necessarily unique to man.

    Therefore looking in the mirror doesn’t show your soul – it shows the physical characteristics of an animal, that are either capable of showing their personality, or is not capable of showing their personality. Their isn’t a soul, there is just your conscience, and your conscience is set of biological and physical actions, that have been developed through the death of millions of generations of species to find the best configuration for a biological function to survive for the longest amount of time possible.

    DTW: [“I have addressed this question before with you, just think of this, in USA they use lethal injection, do you think this to be inappropriate, in many countries you will be killed including China if you are smuggling drugs. What is your answer to that??? ].

    I don’t believe in capital punishment – because it doesn’t undo the crime – I would prefer prisoners were giving tasks to do that benefited society in some manner. However, I understand that a secular society with secular laws, has to make a balanced judgement based on the benefit to society as a whole. If religion was allowed to make sure judgements, the bible would be used to justify stoning, and in societies where their religious scriptures are allowed to govern the nation, serious breaches of human rights occur – take Afghanistan, Iran etc.

    DTW: [You must not use your 21st century morality on historical books and even with your morality, we need to question it if this is subjective or objective. And what is the standard that we should use, and guess what you are against any standards are you not, as anything we have today in human rights could change tomorrow right??]

    I think standards have to be tested and challenged all the time. The bible as you have argued is the word of god, and therefore must be perfect – if the bible is perfect then why do we have the problems that we are having with the bible and its interpretation of what it means. Which parts of the bible are relevant to today – if I can not take it litterally. What I am asking you is do you believe that the bible tells you what god wants you to do and if it does, then does this mean it is OK for you to stone people to death?

    DTW: [I like how you atheists like to point to the Old Testament and distort it without having any idea about the context. Standards have changed that is for sure but have facts that the only way to maintain farness and morality is still enshrined in laws. I particularly find things to be laughable when one hears of the personal standards that would replace Old Testament standards that frankly would not be workable.]

    It is not just the OT it is the NT as well that are not taken literally. Do you have possessions?

    Matthew 19:21-24
    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

  8. Misunderstoodranter: “It means that animals show evidence of having a conscience, they recognise themselves. It means that humans probably do not recognise themselves when they are born and up to a certain age – implying that the personality is dependent on some sort of physical development that is not necessarily unique to man. Therefore looking in the mirror doesn’t show your soul – it shows the physical characteristics of an animal, that are either capable of showing their personality, or is not capable of showing their personality. Their isn’t a soul, there is just your conscience, and your conscience is set of biological and physical actions, that have been developed through the death of millions of generations of species to find the best configuration for a biological function to survive for the longest amount of time possible.”

    Defend the word: Have you spoken to any animal Dr Doolittle? And have you communicated with humans? There is a big difference you know. Joking aside, if there is a group of people that make claims contrary to your own from their personal experiences you would have to have good reasons to prove them wrong. Drastic change in lifestyle by those who discover God also points that there is more to human beings than simply flesh and bones.

    Misunderstoodranter: “I don’t believe in capital punishment – because it doesn’t undo the crime – I would prefer prisoners were giving tasks to do that benefited society in some manner. However, I understand that a secular society with secular laws, has to make a balanced judgement based on the benefit to society as a whole. If religion was allowed to make sure judgements, the bible would be used to justify stoning, and in societies where their religious scriptures are allowed to govern the nation, serious breaches of human rights occur – take Afghanistan, Iran etc.”

    Defend the word: No today we have lethal injections no need for stoning, tell Americans that they can’t use it and see what answer you get back. Again you give me your personal preference and you refuse to take the point made previousely.

    Misunderstoodranter: “I think standards have to be tested and challenged all the time. The bible as you have argued is the word of god, and therefore must be perfect – if the bible is perfect then why do we have the problems that we are having with the bible and its interpretation of what it means. Which parts of the bible are relevant to today – if I can not take it litterally. What I am asking you is do you believe that the bible tells you what god wants you to do and if it does, then does this mean it is OK for you to stone people to death?”

    Defend the word: So we will go with your standards then? You make me laugh, I never advocate people to be stoned, secondly you should separate legal laws used by government from that of the private citizen. This is not complicated.

    Misunderstoodranter: “It is not just the OT it is the NT as well that are not taken literally. Do you have possessions?

    Defend the word: Are you a rich man that Jesus is addressing here? No so what is the problem for you. Again you take text out of context.

    Matthew 19:21-24
    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

  9. misunderstoodranter says:

    Jesus made a number of very clear statements about money and wealth in the Bible. For example:

    Matthew 6:19
    Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

    Luke 14:33
    Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

    Matthew 6:24
    No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.

    Matthew 19:21-24
    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Matthew 19:28-29
    Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

    Luke 9:23-25
    Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

    Matt 13: 22
    The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

    Hebrews 13:5
    Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”

    Phil 2:3
    Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

    Acts 2:44-45
    All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

    The message is clear. If you want to follow Jesus, you need to “sell your possessions and give to the poor.” It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it?

    The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus’ time.

    Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty.

  10. misunderstoodranter says:

    [Have you spoken to any animal Dr Doolittle? ]

    There have been many studies on this subject of consciousness in the animal kingdom – you should read up on them, they are very insightful.

    [No today we have lethal injections no need for stoning, tell Americans that they can’t use it and see what answer you get back. ]

    Only in some states – and if I had a choice I would take lethal injection any day. Stoning is horrible and repulsive act which happens in the most religious societies even today. I am glad that our society is more secular at worst it is less cruel, at best it does away with barbaric executions like those described in the bible.

  11. harry says:

    Harry: Good grief talking about clutching at straws with the bible telling us the earth is round and what not.

    Hello, the earth is not circular, its spherical. All portrayals of the earth being flat, it is a circular flat earth.

    Not to mention the fact thoe quotes are picked and chosen. The bible also indicates the earth is flat in equally clear as mud texts.

    ”Faith is believing in something you know is not true”

    Stop lying to yourself DTW, you KNOW the bible is as clear as mud on this and you KNOW the bible can be interpreted in any host of different ways from these texts…especially these texts.

    Defend the Word: I love how you like to paint the picture but forget to include all the primary colours. Bible says that earth is round and at no point does it say that it is flat. This is based on the interpretation of the saying that we have 4 corners of the world. Guess what even scientist use this expression and we don’t call them ignorant we just accept that from where you stand thing look different to what the reality is. But for them this was irrelevant as it described perfectly that there is more than just one direction you could go in?

    Your quote of Dawkins, speaks volume why you believe and say things you do. And automatically disqualifies you as a logical argument is that faith is used for science and everything else you and I come across. We have talked before about seeped of light and subatomic particles before so your argument simply does not hold water. Unless you can demonstrate that I’m real and that this is not all in your imagination I suggest you talk with little bit more humility. Secondly your assessment of the Bible is yet again perverted for your own benefit but is it true? I think it is pointless to discus this with you, as all the archaeological evidence and all the historical books are of no interest to you. You simply have your world view and you are comfortable there, that is fine as long as you don’t pretend that you know the truth.

  12. Unless you are committed Christian you should not comment to other Christian what he/she should do. Secondly Since when does Philippians, Acts and Hebrews represent what Jesus Said. I though only Gospels recorded Christ’s specific words. But then again what do I know I only studied theology. Unlike you, you just scour the internet for Atheistic propaganda so you must be much better placed to give solid evidence against Christianity. All and I mean all of your quotes are taken out of context I suggest you look up free commentaries on the internet I have advertised e-sward on this blog before I suggest you take up their free offer. What Jesus is talking is to understand our priorities and what dominates our lives. To use the words of one American Christian, who said something like this, Yes we Americans have loads of money we feel blessed but then again when you look at the giving per country you will see that most Christian countries again and again are at the top of their generosity. I also remember that in the past you were against simply giving but you wanted to equip others to learn to look after their own affairs and that is precisely how it should be. Bible specifically states that if possible one should support himself through work not begging. You make extremely simplistic statement that dos not have simple answer and then you think you are justified in saying what you do. Well all I can say to that we live in a free country and if that makes you happy then its fine with me. But please don’t expect me to agree with such deliberate distortion.

  13. How one sided, but very convenient, note that if you go to a very strict Muslim country you will not have crime rate that you have in here, where hundreds of people are killed thousands stabbed, raped, sexually exploited, robed etc, etc. And then you call then barbarians? That is so ironic, many would argue like they do in America that unless we become tougher on Crimes that liberal Western Europe is going to see increase not decrease in crime rates.

  14. misunderstoodranter says:

    Defend the Word old: “Unless you are committed Christian you should not comment to other Christian what he/she should do.”

    misunderstoodranter: Why not? Are Christian’s better than everyone else then?

    Christian’s like to comment on other people’s motives, actions and morals, but they do not like it when other religions, or atheists comment on theirs.

    All religions are subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea.

    You have to realise that from a secular and atheist perspective, your religion is no more special than anything else in the world. In other words it is only special to you and other Christians. Being a Christian does not give you the right to comment on sex out side of marriage or euthanasia.

    It is not acceptable for Christian’s to tell society what to do with regard to cloning, or abortion or contraception or anything else that involves human rights – because not everyone shares your moral belief.

    Christian’s forget that some people find them offensive. There is a man who preaches in my local town – stands on his soap box shouting, I find that offensive and socially unacceptable – because he is trying to force his belief on other people.

    Most months some Christian group knocks on my door to invite me into Church. I find that offensive – nothing gives Christianity a right to push their religion onto me. I don’t even speak to people who are trying to sell me stuff on the door step – so why Christian’s think it is OK to do this is beyond my understanding. I do not go knocking on their doors with a copy of Dawkins in my had.

    You seem to want your cake and eat it DTW – on one hand you are saying that the bible is fact – the true word of god and perfect. In the next argument you are saying that any quotes that atheists use are out of context, and that it has been interpreted wrong – or used out of context – which ever argument supports your argument.

    You can’t seem to find any faults with the bible at all, and you explain the faults away with contorted logic.

    For example the debate we had on unicorns… the translations of the bible – the 40 – 60 year gap between the crucifiction and gospels.

    The OT flaws is about the only thing that you have ever agreed with – and that is because they are so silly it is untrue.

    The truth is there are many silly things written in the bible, they are silly in context and they are silly out of context.

    So again – if this bible is the perfect word of god, then why do we need trained theologians to interpret it?

    Anyhow you have still not explained the trinity to me – I want an explanation – well at least your explanation – because every Christian I have spoken to has given me different answers.

    I don’t want a long rambling answer of mumbo jumbo – I want a straight answer – simple easy to understand answer – a perfect answer from someone who knows for sure that god exists.

    Defend the Word: Dude you have totally warped sense of reality. When I said about Christian commenting on poor people and command not to love money I said it as a specific comment by Jesus which was addressing his disciples and others who followed him. You are not in that group therefore I’m justified in saying unless you are specifically addressed you should not comment as the call and request is not directed at you. Say you are qualified accountant if I ask you to check my books and get them sorted as per our contract that means I ‘m talking to you. I do not approach physicist, likewise when Jesus is calling someone or addressing someone he is specific and there is no hidden agenda there. Your massive misunderstanding yet again shows why you have views that you do hold. Secondly your claim of me or others selling Christianity to you is so out of touch with reality that is laughable. You came to my blog not the other way around! You again go back to unicorns from King James versions as you have no other arguments you therefore must go to a translation that is more than several hounded years old. Well done now you have proven Christianity wrong.

    Secondly I never said that translation of the Bible New Testament is that remote from the original events, what I said is that gap can be proven to be shorted. Often 20 to 30 years apart depending on the gospels and in the case of the Apostle Paul within couple of years of death of Jesus. Not to mention possible “Q” source which could be contemporary with the actual events and time of Jesus. Secondly you continue to deliberately ignore other things mentioned from previous conversation and then you accuse me of contorted logic??? One thing is for sure, when I expose your overblown statements you become either more sober about your arguments or you revert to the old ones. I will therefore have to remind you that you should bring new arguments or back up with new information old ones. Please we could not go on like this indefinitely I appreciate your need to be right but you should also recognise my intelligence and my refusal to be suckered in by ridiculous provocative deliberately offensive comments. You should have noted by now that they are either moderated or deleted!

    I have also not agreed on any errors in the Old Testament. What I said is that some translations needed to be modified, which is different from what you said. That just shows selective hearing on your part. And lastly you object to people coming to your door or preaching. But would you hold this against Christians if you happen to die tonight and stand before God and then complain that nobody told you about him and therefore it is not your fault for not believing?

    And not to mention pushy atheists who forever visit Christian blogs in order to show of their intelligent, logically sound argumentation against deity they could not see??? Lastly should we mention much of the brain washing and dumbing down of the modern TV programs that is pushed on the rest of us in UK? So who is the pushy aggressor then, objectively speaking? Lastly did you ever get forced to do religion, and specifically Christianity, in fact from your own personal testimony you use to go to religious school but now you reject that. Sounds like religious freedom to choose and freedom to reject, yet again you choose only to take into account things that hurt you and ignore the facts about everything else.

    Lastly, what we know from the Bible is that there is a trinity, consisting of Father Son and Holy Spirit. All of them one God but as we say God in 3 persons. This complexity does not mean that this is untrue, otherwise you should make same claim on all the complicated scientific staff you don’t understand.

    I never pretended to understand this in details but what I said above is clear from the Biblical texts. When Jesus says that he is God and that he who has seen him has seen God means complex relationship exists and unity is clear but we also see him saying “My God why have you forsaken me”, therefore theologically speaking both are true.

    In the same way light is particle and wave, so I would suggest that anyone who claims that he has this completely buttoned down is not being completely honest. But what is revealed is clear enough to form view and forming such theological opinion that is justified by the text. As I said before we go from known data towards unknown or less known, and Jesus has been proven so many times right that I consider it right for someone that has so much more superior understanding is entitle to share some of his insights and we are entitled to believe them.

  15. misunderstoodranter says:

    Misunderstoodranter: It is not I that has a warped view of reality, I don’t invoke supernatural beings. The difference between your ‘accountant’ examples is that they are dealing with real world things that are measurable. Christianity, deals with mystical supernatural things that do not affect the real world and are not measurable – if they were true Christian’s would not die in equal numbers in the event of natural disasters to non Christians.

    Defend the Word: I was only using an example which shows that you could address certain things to the right person and this would not apply to all its not too complicated and does not deserve such lengthy counter argument.

    Misunderstoodranter: So I do get on the offensive when Religion meddles with matters of reality like cloning, genetics, the teaching of science, euthanasia, abortion, women’s rights, gay rights etc.
    I did come to your blog, I am an atheist and it is my decision to come to your blog – i.e. I opted into this debate and not the other way around which is fine. I think religion is something people can opt into, and can be challenged.
    I commented on your blog because you were proposing to me that the bible was the absolute truth and the total word of god. Over the months, I have put to you my reasons why I think this assumption is incorrect – the basis for this argument has been on translation – which at first you would not accept. You also declared that Dawkins was lying about the bible stating that Unicorns existed – and I pointed out that it does indeed say this. I think we both agree that this is due to translation. So this supports my view that the bible is translated, and is therefore not the word of god, but is in fact the translated word of man – which by definition affects the integrity of the bible.

    Defend the Word: I love Russian literature so lets say we choose Fyodor Dostoyevsky and we translate one of his books lets say Brothers Karamazov, this translation is not my words and they are certainly not fully words of Dostoyevsky but whole of the message is his. If I make few mistakes doe to my carelessness and if the English language changes further that does not mean that Dostoyevsky did not write his remarkable books on the contrary anything else is so completely ridiculous and if I was to claim otherwise you would be right to use one of his titles and call me by it, i.e. I mean an Idiot.

    Misunderstoodranter: Never the less there is a gap – it cannot be filled, and the Q source is not verified, it is assumed to have existed, but the fact that it does not exist does not prove that it did exist. By the way I do recognise your intelligence that is why I return to this blog.
    The moderation of comments, I find totally insulting, especially as I am not openly rude and as an intelligent person you should see why this is unacceptable. The issue with religious people is that they put their religion on a pedestal – I level all religions to the same status and treat them with the same contempt, as I treat any other idea that is not backed up by strong scientific evidence. Skepticism is healthy, and I am pleased that you are skeptical of evolution, I only ask that you treat your own religion with the same level of skepticism.

    Defend the Word: Precisely because of your attitude to treat religion with Contempt as you just openly admitted I have right to stop you from insulting many people that do come to this blog and have strong feelings about God. Case closed on that one. Secondly we have been over this issue of age and Gospels and you continue to ignore everything I said and persist with your assumptions which really need to be proven as you should know that most of the ancient history is recorded often in the papyrus that is dated hundreds if not thousand years after the original event. This does not make them untrue, I just don’t know where you got your ideas, well I do from your atheistic blogs but I wonder how you can’t see through this after receiving information that explains where their critical thinking is falling apart.

    Misunderstoodranter: Thank you for acknowledging that the bible would need to be modified before it would make sense – this proves to me that it is indeed the word of man, and that it is not the perfect word of god that many Christian’s believe it to be. I do object to people knocking on my door to sell me anything – including god.
    The trouble with your response here, is that you are assuming that I will repent when it is my time to die – what you have to understand, is that I will not, I don’t believe in god. I don’t hate god, for me the god of the bible simply does not exist – I cannot hate something that I do not believe is there. If the god of the bible does exist and I am judged, then god will have all the information on which to judge me – it will make no difference whether I am devoutly religious or not. I know I am a good person, as comparable by any religious teaching, and I am good without the need for rewards of heaven or threats of hell. What I will say is that I am as moral as I am and can possibly be.

    Defend the Word: Let me respond in two very quick sentences.
    1. No words of mine could be used to justify your faith against God as I could be wrong and God could be surprised by all that I say. Therefore your assessment that you are justify because I say something is absurd! Secondly you have tried that before and will not rattle my cage I just don’t care, you should have taken note of that by now.
    2. I live judgement of people to God and would not dare condemn anyone as that is strictly in God’s job description.

    Misunderstoodranter: I am afraid the battle lines are drawn DTW, the name of your blog suggests that you have recognized this. The thing is that atheists in a small community are a minority, but world wide it is likely that we are a majority, or at very least as large as any of the other large religions. I find that it is Christian’s from the fundamental right that hi-jack videos on you tube, and try to pollute the debate using ID strategy to change the law or misinterpret fact or become childishly unreasonable in debates.
    Many of our debates, and the debates that you have had with tildeb and others have pointing this out to you yet you still refuse to accept this. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Is an example of this interference – but please note that the Judge (a church go-er) even recognised this. Yet still you side with creationalists even though the just and the good have rejected it. Schooling is important, I had no choice to go to the school that I went to, because all the schools in the area were of a protestant nature, and the UK education system has a broad Christian teaching ingrained in the curriculum – up until the age of 14 I believed in god, because adults had told me to. Only as my mind matured that I realised that there were contradictions in the bible, and when I questioned these the adults didn’t have an answer – it was then that I knew that the bible as being a matter of fact was just an opinion like any other.

    Defend the Word: So you believe the words of judge, because he is not scientifically qualified but refuse to accept the words of others who are far better placed to answer this question I wonder what is your criteria of choice on what is believable? Did that ever cross your mind or do you simply continue to choose whatever you fancy? First no majority holds monopoly on truth, what kind of logic is that. Secondly debates should be based on reasoning that is not contrary to the very foundations that are used to hold them. And when atheists try to use science to disprove God and then violate every possible scientific principle in the process I would assume it right and proper that honest people should point this obvious distortion out. There is nothing illogical about this, the only illogical thing is that Atheists will pretend that they know things that are clearly beyond knowledge and often exaggerate and distort real facts.

    Misunderstoodranter: Atheists challenge the religious, because the claims that are made by the religious are very high – they claim that god has given them morals that they must push onto society. Atheists have started to reject this notion, because it is dangerous to society, unless of course there is demonstrable evidence that proves beyond doubt that a any particular religion has this right.
    This is especially true where multiple religions compete in the same social space for example Islam and Christianity – where both groups of believers are just as devote as each other and both think that they are acting upon the word of god, yet disagree. Therefore to prevent war, it is necessary to invoke secular rights rather than religious beliefs.

    Defend the Word: You would do right to listen to Sam Harris world renown atheist who specifically says that we should not bundle all religions in same bag, secondly where on earth did you hear that Christians wanted war with other religions, this is the concept that is hundreds of years old and is today completely removed from reality.

    Misunderstoodranter: This is the explanation I expected, which is that you do not understand it, can you point me to someone that does or has an explanation that makes sense that you do agree with. Therefore it is not clear from the biblical texts, if it were clear you would be able to explain it to me.
    The difference between the particle and wave theories of light is that they are both true, because they are both demonstrable and observable – I understand why this is true, as I have witnessed some of the experiments. Here is one example of such an experiment:
    In contrast there is no such experiment that can verify the nature of god – it could be the trinity, it might not be… we just do not know, and have no way of determining it, except for a load of written contradictions in the bible.
    Light on the other hand can be measured, it can be demonstrated as a wave or a particle, and these observations support our other understandings of the observable universe.
    Finally, placing god outside the universe to explain gods existence does not provide proof of god. From a atheists perspective we do not know what is outside of the universe – there may not be an outside, instead we have to focus on what we can see and do – which is reality.

    Defend the Word: So you are answering my question by pointing me to wiki? I’m glad that you checked validity of what I said, but surely just regurgitating that information does not answer my question back to you? Yes we have observed that both light reacts as particle and wave but the explanation given is so vague just as “precise” as I give to you about trinity and connection between God the Father and Jesus. I fail to see how your answer changes anything I said previously. It only confirms my understanding of your arguments that when atheist don’t understand things they tend to oversimplify and demand that the answer is formulated in the way that they prefer regardless of whether or not this is correct scientific approach. We know from History that Jesus was observed, stories of his miracles are recorded in both Christian and non Christian writings and we can infer from science that something greater than universe could and in fact by the principle from science of the law of causality demands that in fact he must be there. This is not Biblical mambo jumbo this is science that demands this. So you tell me again that there are no evidence out there with straight face and I will have to conclude that you simply lack understanding of the topic in question.

  16. misunderstoodranter says:

    Misunderstoodranter If god wanted to forgive our sins why not just forgive them? Without all the torture and execution bit, what point was he proving?
    The bible is full of illogical loops like this – that are just explained away by the religious as mysterious.
    I think the real problem with Christianity or any religion, isn’t the fact that people who disagree with the bible misinterpret it – it is the fact that people who have agreed with it, have not thought about it, or in many cases – such as the case for morals, have not even read it. The bible is sold as a book of morals, yet we would not follow the majority of the morals in the bible – if we did, we would be killing, raping and torturing all the time in it’s name.

    Defend the Word: I’m going to pretend that you have meant best but have to point out that your approach does not help debate. It only serves to inflate arguments and then we stop communicating and only attempt to prove the other side wrong and forget level-headed argumentation. Your assertions need to be supported by facts and in the future where this is not the case I will not waste my precious time replaying.

    Misunderstoodranter I don’t see any morals in the Old Testament that are compatible with modern living – I am pretty sure, I will not kill my children for misbehaving, or having sex outside of marriage, or for being homosexual… so if the OT is not to be taken literally – then what is it’s relevance?

    Defend the Word: I never said that modern morals are the standards that we should value that comes from yourself not me so lets not debate that point.
    The NT is certainly an improvement on the OT – but since Jesus is supposed to be God – you would have thought he would be sighting the morals of the old testament, but he doesn’t – Jesus by comparison is a ‘tree hugger’ – although, he does on occasion say some quite strong stuff, and does get angry.

    Defend the Word: Do you get tired when you answer these questions I say this as you change emotionally and intellectually so frequently, i.e. from logical person to overly emotional man? I have expanded on this before Jesus himself states that He did not come to abolish but to fulfil the Old Testament so your argument is contrary to the Bible.

    Defend the Word Previously “We know from History that Jesus was observed, stories of his miracles are recorded in both Christian and non Christian writings….”

    Misunderstoodranter Now you are repeating your argument – and I will ask you again – point me to the non-christian texts that support that Jesus was alive, and was god, in particular texts that support each other independently.
    Even by your own reckoning that the bible was written after the fact, some considerable years after – (apart from the mystical Q document). Wishing this away, by saying you have already explained it – doesn’t work – you have not explained it.

    Defend the Word: Look lets not go into this anymore, you could check what I said and you will find that they are generally accepted by most scholars. Secondly the issue of “Q” source is issue that is pushed by Liberal theologians therefore more closely aligned to your world view then what I believe. But most of all that someone who does not know much could come out and make statements like you do is also telling about what kind of arguments you prefer to build upon. Despite my many rebuttals and clear exposition of the situation you selectively take very small points and ignore everything else may I suggest you read slowly. Argument are not built by saying, you are wrong, and them me replying no you are wrong and you then coming back and saying no you are wrong. This is not logical way to debate use information at your disposal and them come with some argument that is greater than simply restating what was said previously. We don’t want to reduce this childish mockery.

    Misunderstoodranter King Arthur has witnesses – and so do the egyptian gods of light and dark – but this does not make them true, because they are not witnesses in the sense that they are verified – they witnesses that we do not even know existed themselves – you may as well say the Lord of Rings is a true account because there are witnesses documented within it.

    Defend the Word: You yet again lose control of the facts and history, you should not commit to something that you don’t know. What is your point? Are you saying that Jesus did not exist?

    The lost copy of ‘Gospel of Judas’ not included in the Canon and recently discovered – it has been radio carbon dated to about 300 years AD. This Gospel seems to make the case that Judas betrayed Jesus, because Jesus asked him to – to redeem Humankind… but this still begs the question to redeem human kind for who’s purpose and for what? And what is to say that this gospel is not true – again adding further tampering with the bible as we have it today – someone made the decision not to include it.

    Defend the Word: So you will take something that is 270 years after Jesus and claim it to be more reliable then Gospels that are 20 years after Jesus and written by eyewitnesses which even today would be both acceptable in the courts of law and by the historians. It simply shows your willingness to pervert facts and ignore major points. Also if you know anything about the early church history you would know that this writing is compatible philosophically with Greek philosophy and religion that mixed the two known as Gnosticism which is in direct contrast with Gospels. You should also know that this philosophy originated at lest 150 years after Jesus therefore is not contemporary to the original story. Get it?

    Misunderstoodranter As for offending Christian’s – I think they can look after themselves – I am not sure they require your ‘moderation’ anymore than I do – and to presume so is patronising to them and insulting to me. If you truly want to defend the word of ‘God’ or the bible – you need to be honest with every one’s views and not hide behind emotional blackmail. There are many things in the bible, I find offensive from a humanitarian view, and many others do – but I doubt you would support a clean censored version of the bible?

    Defend the Word: Actually common decency dictates that I create comfortable environment for everyone that comes to this blog and that means that I am right not to offend anyone that is unless ideas run directly opposed to common decency and logical thinking.

    Misunderstoodranter I think your purpose for moderation is to censor ideas that shake your argument. And to hide information from others, by using the ‘it might cause offense’ excuse – people can look after themselves.
    Which is the same issue with the schools not teaching evolution and again a point that was made by the Judge in the trial I sighted earlier.
    Not only were the religious governors trying to deceitful in the eyes of the law, but the evidence they provided for ID was wrong and shown to be wrong in a way that the layman can understand.
    Finally, surely the religious people who were watching the trial – prayed to god for their side to win the trial – just a thought, but god didn’t answer their prayers either.

    Defend the Word: Lets stay calm about this. First I’m letting you vent your frustration now, but I will not let you insult and belittle anyone either whom I include in my writings or anyone visiting this blog. You do not and nether does anyone else have right to such privilege that leads to ignorant aggressive behaviour that will not be tolerated here. If you want to do that you are welcomed to set up your own internet page and good luck with that. As for the issue of ID what does that got to the with the price of eggs? How is that even remotely logically connected to the facts of truth?

  17. misunderstoodranter says:

    “Lets stay calm about this. First I’m letting you vent your frustration now, but I will not let you insult and belittle anyone either whom I include in my writings or anyone visiting this blog. ”

    DTW – I have not belittled anyone. And I am not frustrated either. There are other places I can visit, however, I have found your blog to be in the main welcoming of thoughtful discussion, I wish I could say the same of other creationist and religious sites who have condemned me to burn in hell for speaking my mind and challenging their view.

    My only request is that you accept the challenges that I put to you and counter challenge them. In the main you have and I thank you for that – because this promotes critical thinking and does not subdue the quest for knowledge and understanding.

    Like many atheists I am not fundamentalist in my view – I do not kill or hurt anyone, and my aggression is only in the written intellectual word. It is a core value of atheists to be able to challenge those who claim to have divine insights into the world.

    A statement such as: “Unlike the religious, we do not fly planes into buildings.” Is not an insult – it is a statement of fact, and an underpinning of the morals that atheists generally have, which is of a humanitarian aim. War horrifies me, whether it is in the name of god or anything else. This is a very high standard of moral, which if all religious people adopted would make life on earth a lot easier. And whilst this statement is intended to be provoking, it is not openly destructive to or insulting human life, flying a plane into a building however – is. Atheists make such statements to hit home, that we are not evil, immoral people – and in fact our morals outstrip the fundamentalist views of nearly every religion I can think of. The law case I sighted spells this out – Atheists do not conspire to push corrupt evidence to promote a god, Christian fundamentalists however – do, and are prepared to lie under oath in order to get their twisted facts in the class room for impressionable young minds to foster.

    Here are ten Atheists commandments (they are not official – but they show the general spirit of atheists):

    It is utterly fundamentalist, to discredit and disregard evidence that does not support the bible, yet embrace anything that might. True science does not do this. I know what would change my view of evolution and if someone were to find that evidence I would discredit it tomorrow.

    There are tough questions that are raised through the analysis of the bible and religion in general.

    I have enjoyed our discussions, they have bettered my understanding of both sides of the debate, and I have been introduced to other like minded individuals.

    However, I would discourage any form of moderation in such a debate, especially if the people who are contributing to the debate are not rude in a childish way.

    Critical thinking requires the open discussion of topics – and since the bible deals out morals and values that are based on love, peace and healing and also hate, slavery, rape and murder. Then it is inevitable that such topics are going to be raised and challenged and comparisons are going to be made. As I have mentioned before, if people are offended by the reality of religion, it is because they have not thought about the reality of religion hard enough.

    There is little point in running a blog like this, if you are going to moderate any challenges to your reasoning out. After all, you are supposed to be defending the word – so by definition, you need someone to defend the word against.

  18. Thanks very much for your support, but after all I have limited resources mainly my time. So I will have to reduce my replies to the absolute essentials to do this I will have to ask people to remain focused on the topic in question that is introduced by the post and will welcome questions but those would have to be treated as separate posts otherwise main points will be lost. I have greatly enjoyed chatting with you, and have no objection in continuing this but we will have to make this more structured. This does not mean that I will stop people asking question or challenging what I’m saying but it will mean more structure to our exchanges. However I will have to ask and you have obviously agreed to it that civilised exchanges are what is needed.

    And I welcome communication and exchanges with people that do not agree with me, as this shows that both sides are happy to be challenged. However as they say in the Bible in Ephesians 4 “Speak the truth in Love”, this means challenging ideas and showing where they are wrong. But not at the cost of hurting people, I’m not accusing anyone that they may be doing this deliberately only that we must consider others and by your general attitude I would say this is not your problem. However as with any public debate you will find that all different formats include moderators and they are needed as otherwise things can and inevitably do deteriorate into chaos. I am sure you have watched many debates and I think this is in the interest of farness to all sides that get involved. I hope you can see what I’m trying to achieve and agree with the general idea.

  19. misunderstoodranter says:

    I agree – structure is good.

    However, no one should be offended by the challenging of religion, no one should be offended by challenging any idea – for example, challenging the ideas of Shakespeare or Einstein, religion is no different – and if you are going to engage with secular society in a meaningful way, you need to be able to face these challenges with honesty.

    You forget, that atheists are offended too; there are lots of things I am offended by, but does that give me the right to suppress others of their opinions?

    I am offended:

    When children are denied an education

    When children are told they will spend their eternity
    will spend their time in hell

    By female circumcision

    The stoning of women

    We should be offended by people prevent advances in medical science.

    So what I am saying is you should not be offended at all by anyone who challenges arguments that support or would support these acts.

    This is the fundamental to being able to reason in the debates that surround religion, and therefore you need to have a strong sense of rational thought.

    Remember that to atheists religion is ‘just’ an idea like any other, and remember that your ideas may be taken as offence as well.

  20. I have no problems with people challenging ideas but how we put that challenge is of the essence here. Let me give you an example.

    Say we have an issue of Young Earth creationism. Whilst most of the time we here debate ID rather than creationism I think it is important and right to protect everyone that joins our discussion. So for the sake of argument let’s say an atheist is giving his opinion on this subject he / she could address these in two ways.

    1.) All Young Earth Creationist are idiots and don’t deserve any chance by anyone reasonable and should be ridiculed at any given opportunity.
    2.) Creationist are not consistent in their claims that they are rational and scientifically accurate when in fact science shows us that Earth and Universe is old and nowhere near as young as they claim (6,000 years in total) and should be shown that they need to address this question honestly.

    You could see that there is a massive difference in approach here between the two statements, first one will not be allowed anymore and second one will be welcomed with open arms (as they say).

    And no I don’t believe either that there is any religious subject that should be forbidden. For protestants whilst we have declaration of faith we don’t have dogmas in the same sense that Catholic church does. Questioning is encouraged as that is the only way one can truly understand the issues at hand and most importantly we are all responsible and could not abdicate this to anyone else. Therefore whilst this will demand more work on our part it also offers greater satisfaction once one arrives to the better understanding of the subject. You will also note that there are many minor differences in theology between different evangelical denominations and this is precisely because we find this task placed upon us.

  21. misunderstoodranter says:

    I have no problem with anyone calling atheists idiots at all – so long as they expect me to ask them to justify their view.

    Clearly the example you have used in statement (1) above – shows that at best the author is passionate about their view and at worst that they do not have the mental capacity to support their view.

    And yes, if someone were to flood the debate with such statements, then that might warrant them from being censored or blocked.

    But I think there is beauty in the debate by allowing such statements, as it allows people to use humour, to back up their view – it also allows passionate statements to be explained. And it most importantly it allows individuals to make their own mind up about the worth of debating with any other individual.

    If the responses are always ‘junk’ with no rational thought or critical thinking behind them – I will just ignore them anyway – and I suggest that Christian’s or other religious people do the same.

    This allows a culture of ‘self moderation’ to prevail – which allows people to judge characters on their own merit – and it is in the true spirit of the freedom of speech.

    People should always remember that just because ‘you’ take it as an offence to say something – it does not necessarily mean that everyone else does, even if they believe in the religion or idea that you do. In other words – ‘you don’t necessarily speak on the behalf of all Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Hindu’s, Pagan’s, Buddhists etc. etc.’

  22. Thank for your views and with most of them I agree but I would also add that there is a difference between private conversations and when there are many others who come to look at what is being said.

    About your goodness: In the same way that you give to charities and care for other people, as per your previous statements many moons ago. I would suggest that exactly the same rule applies when dealing with peoples emotional needs. We could not simply ignore them and walk all over them. In fact in my young days I was known for confronting bullies in my school, many, many years ago. I strongly hold on to that principle that Jesus thought us “treat other people in the way you would like to be treated”. I also hold a view that as a host, I’m also responsible to maintain peace and order. Passion is allowed and even welcomed but we must know and abide by the rules of decency.

    And as you say if something is worth ignoring then I may just as well exclude it, and spare everyone any annoyance. But I must reiterate I welcome and encourage people to disagree as long as they give their reasons rather than give statements that are not backed up by a good reason or evidence.

    So let me encourage you and others please do challenge and do ask in fact I will create separate page just for questions. This will serve two purposes 1. People can ask and find answers (hopefully) to their questions. 2. We can hopefully then show that just going over the same material again and again is pointless when basic fundamental starting points are so wide apart between two debating parties.

    God example to give: For example we debated need to demonstrate spiritual or mental and metaphysical with repeatable tests that are demanded by many atheist. But when I point out that much of since is not done that way, eg constancy of speed of light travelling through space is not demonstrable, or number of things in quantum physics, things we call subatomic don’t behave in the way we understand them that they should, we still continue to search for things like dark matter and dark energy etc. Fact that Big bang or even origin of life are one off events also teach us that we should not discard miracles simply because we can’t test them. We still have after affects in the same way we see universe expanding and can therefore conclude that it was at one point at the point of singularity, from which we derive our Big Bang theory we say that it must have happened likewise we could say that if someone is a live and kicking today but was diagnosed with terminal illness before that this is acceptable despite the fact that we could not test this back in the laboratory.

    Anyway I digress, you get my drift, this will hopefully make all our experiences that much happier.

    Thanks for coming back.

    Kind regards

    Defend the Word

  23. misunderstoodranter says:

    “And as you say if something is worth ignoring then I may just as well exclude it, and spare everyone any annoyance.”

    Nope I didn’t say that – I said individuals should choose to ignore them – i.e. democratically, rather than dictatorially (i.e. filtered by you). Comments should get posted and only taken down if they are maliciously abusive, illegal or totally irrelevant.

    People on both sides of the debate in religious and non-religious forums should be allowed to voice their opinion on strong material, using a variety of mediums and tones, without getting emotional or sentimental.

    It is just words and ideas – they do not physically hurt people.

    This is how Richard Dawkins takes his ‘hate mail’:


    I really like the last one – very funny ‘I hope you get hit by a Church Van’ …

  24. That makes no sense, both you and I say that we should not get emotional yet you say that we should allow inflammatory and aggressive behaviour and let the rest choose. Two are directly excusive of the other options, one will have to discriminate in order to retain integrity of the farness to all involved.

    Anyway I will stop here, and will not expand anymore as that defeats the whole point of moderation. Many places on the net have it, and anyone who does not like it does not have to be here. So there I give complete freedom to people to ignore this blog, and freedom to come here and challenge any idea in a civilised and logical way. Choice is clearly stated and will not be negotiable.

Comments are closed.