• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is There A God?[W:262, 890]

Re: Is There A God?

Why, yeah. They're evidence of Design. God.

If you'll look at the way they fit into this world - their purpose, their uses, their contribution, their role......of course.
It's part of the big picture!

Would we even have the Book called the Bible that we read today....if there is no paper. :lol:

Everything knits together....just like the existence of the universe that makes life sustainable on earth......that's another PATTERN!

You are supposing "design" implies a designer...but design may simply be an accident of nature. You are saying (very arbitrarily) design = God. But the truth MAY BE design = nature. We really do not know...and for you to insist it must be one way over the other is gratuitous.

So...other than design being arbitrarily and illogically indicative of a god...what is your most compelling single piece of evidence that there is a god?



That's what this thread is all about, isn't. I'm showing you - through the evidences - that there is a God!

You are showing me why you want very much to think there is a god...and you may be right.

But, respectfully as possible, Tosca, you most assuredly are not "showing me through evidence"...that there is a god.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Evidence that can be interpreted in multiple and contradictory ways in not evidence, unless put together with other evidence that preclude those contradictory interpretations. Thus it can be ambiguous but put together can lead to a probability, or as Tosca says cumulative evidence. However there isn't any evidence as such provided. So not only is there no evidence ambiguous there is no cumulative evidence.

Absolutely, Quag!
 
Re: Is There A God?

What interpretation?

All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:

All those science findings all show Design!

Nope none of them show any signs of a creator. Starting with a conclusion and pretending that things fit your conclusion is not providing evidence. It is just a circular argument.
 
Re: Is There A God?

1. FINE-TUNING

The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION. :)


The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.

Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.


Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.

Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.

There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.

I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN. :)
You're essential argument can be summed up as "everything is the way it is, therefor there is a god!"

You can't say "look, we are in the milky way, and that's the perfect spot for us!" because there are other reasons for that, or at the very least there are other more believe explanations. Whether there is a god or not, wherever you find humans, you'd expect to see them in a place where they could survive and thrive. Period. If you think this is the perfect spot for a god to place us, then it could also be argued it's a good spot for us to have evolved etc.

Also, to chalk this up to design seems silly. If you were to let me "intelligently design" the world and the human body I could improve it dramatically. Think about it, we are on a planet where the large majority of the water isn't even drinkable. Some design.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Seeing as you like to add your own definitions to words, having this discussion with you is pointless.

Okay, you have a right to that. But how about discussing it with the Cambridge Dictionary (among others) who define it as:

"someone who believes that God does not exist."

atheist Meaning in Cambridge English Dictionary



How so? Saying atheism is a worldview is like implying abstinence is a sexual position.

No...atheism is not like that at all.

Atheism does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) which would equal "being without a belief in a god."

Atheism actually came into the English language a century BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.

It actually came into the English language from the Greek through the French and mans "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) which would equal "being without a god."

Sorry to bust your bubble...but this honestly does not answer the question "Is there a god?"



Because there is a claim (ie God) and some people choose not to belief that claim. Therefor, I lack the belief. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

Except...it is completely bogus.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Ignoring it, is not really an argument, is it? What's the point of the discussion if you'll merely say, no, I don't see the evidence.

Not being able to come face-to-face with it (and being unable to address it).....is not really the same as, "not seeing it."
Uh....or is it the other way around? :)

I do not follow you at all, Tosca.

You have not come up with a single item that points to "therefore there is a god."

NOT ONE.

I have asking...begging, in fact, for you to declare the one most compelling item on this list that I simply do not see...so we can discuss it.

Just give it a shot.

What is the single most compelling item in the list that becomes the CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE...so we can discuss it.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Okay, you have a right to that. But how about discussing it with the Cambridge Dictionary (among others) who define it as:

"someone who believes that God does not exist."

atheist Meaning in Cambridge English Dictionary

And the Cambridge definition is nonsense. There is absolutely no logical need to say "I have a belief that I do not believe."


No...atheism is not like that at all.

Atheism does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) which would equal "being without a belief in a god."

Atheism actually came into the English language a century BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.

There were plenty of spiritual beliefs before theism as we know it today. There were people who believed in spirits, or gods and then others who did not believe them. You're digging far too deep into the word instead of the actual definition of the word.

It actually came into the English language from the Greek through the French and mans "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) which would equal "being without a god."

And your point is what, exactly?


Sorry to bust your bubble...but this honestly does not answer the question "Is there a god?"

I do not believe in a god or gods. That is why I'm considered an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't subscribe you to any sort of beliefs or doctrine therefor atheism in itself is not a worldview. There really isn't much more nuance to that.

Except...it is completely bogus.

How is my lack of belief completely bogus? There is no proof for god, so why must I believe in him?
 
Re: Is There A God?

What interpretation?

All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:

All those science findings show Design! They may not want to admit it.....but the individual findings for each and everything - they are cumulative evidences. How can we not see it that way.....if we're using logic?


Not all criminal cases are slam dunk! So many were convicted due to circumstial evidences that when used as a whole, had become
THE evidence...... without reasonable doubt.

Your argument or "evidence" amounts to:

Stuff exists therefore it was created - anything (everything?) created must have been created by "my" chosen creator.
 
Re: Is There A God?

It seems every culture has come up with a "god" to explain the unknown. And within these groups of different religions is this desire to have others share this belief too. If you are the only one in a crowd of people who think you saw sasquatch on a street corner you may doubt your eyes. But if others agree with you then you feel better about your vision.

Infinity is a concept that I really don't think the human brain is able to comprehend. So just saying it is god's way is neat tidy way of taking care of that dilemma for many.

The thought of having a god to look out for us is admirable. With all this power a god would have I think he may do more than win a championship sports game and perhaps something like stopping the second plane to crash into the Twin Towers.

Having a god does give people a sense of security and I guess that may not be all that bad. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.
 
Re: Is There A God?

And the Cambridge definition is nonsense. There is absolutely no logical need to say "I have a belief that I do not believe."




There were plenty of spiritual beliefs before theism as we know it today. There were people who believed in spirits, or gods and then others who did not believe them. You're digging far too deep into the word instead of the actual definition of the word.



And your point is what, exactly?




I do not believe in a god or gods. That is why I'm considered an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't subscribe you to any sort of beliefs or doctrine therefor atheism in itself is not a worldview. There really isn't much more nuance to that.



How is my lack of belief completely bogus? There is no proof for god, so why must I believe in him?

Actually, Pancake...YOU are my idea of an atheist!
 
Re: Is There A God?

Actually, Pancake...YOU are my idea of an atheist!

What is your concept of an atheist, exactly?

Because if your concept of the word "atheist" is anything more than "someone who doesn't believe in god or gods" then you would be wrong.
 
Re: Is There A God?

This thread was created in response to Frank Apisa's request for me to provide evidences for the existence of God. I didn't get the chance to do a research actually.....and didn't gather all the evidences that can be presented. There will be numerous evidences given, and no doubt there will be attempts at rebuttals for each and every one at them. They're listed not in the order of any ranking.

But at the end of the day.....the main evidence that I'll give - there's no getting around it if we're going to use logic - is the fact that all the evidences for God that will be given, are "CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE."

Cumulative evidence(s) reinforces one another (evidences) thereby producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.
It's synonymous with, "corroborative evidence," which confirms, or adds to previous evidence.


So, after I'd given several evidences for the existence of God.....the last evidence I'd put on your doorstep will be the "package" that contains all the evidences as a whole.



Let me just deal a factual blow to atheism, just so to get it out of the way: atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief.


Although there is no direct observational evidence as to the origin of the universe - no direct observational evidence as to how exactly it was created - we now have a good knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it - thanks to science, and to advanced technology - which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.
Intelligent Designers don't necessarily call the Designer, God......but followers of the Abrahamic religions, do.

Without further ado, here's the first evidence.



1. FINE-TUNING

The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION. :)


The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.

Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.

Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.

Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.

There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.

I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN. :)

As others have said, this is not evidence at all. Cumulative or fact or stats or any other measure of a persuasive argument. There is not a single example above that even points to deity in any sense, and no direct association of what you call design to what you call God.
 
Re: Is There A God?

What interpretation?

All I gave were scientific findings! Now you're saying scientiifc results are not good enough....or are not believable. :mrgreen:

All those science findings show Design! They may not want to admit it.....but the individual findings for each and everything - they are cumulative evidences. How can we not see it that way.....if we're using logic?


Not all criminal cases are slam dunk! So many were convicted due to circumstial evidences that when used as a whole, had become
THE evidence...... without reasonable doubt.

At no point in this thread did you provide anything even remotely scientific. Saying "Everything seems so complex to me, so it must be god!" is not evidence. No one here considers anything you've posted as evidence, because it's not. Give us evidence that god, and even more specifically YOUR god is real and the only one.

What is your concept of an atheist, exactly?

Because if your concept of the word "atheist" is anything more than "someone who doesn't believe in god or gods" then you would be wrong.

If you want to hear Frank's position on atheism, there's an entire thread full of hundreds of pages of him saying the same nonsense over and over again.

Summarized, his position is essentially: "Atheists require just as much faith as theists. I'm in the middle with no opinion whatsoever and because of that I'm the only rational person here. You have to accept every claim made by everyone until it's proven right or wrong."

Essentially, Frank doesn't believe in the burden of proof and thinks being an atheist requires explicitly stating "There is 100% no god". He can not be talked to or reasoned with, so you might as well not even try. To Frank, not making things up is the exact same thing as making things up. The only rational position is to float through life with no beliefs, convictions or truth of any kind. 'How dare you state you don't believe in unicorns! You can't prove they don't exist!'

Theist: God is real!
Atheist: I reject your claim until you provide evidence!
Frank: You're both equally faith-based!
 
Last edited:
Re: Is There A God?

What is your concept of an atheist, exactly?

You are my ideal idea of an atheist, Pancake.



Because if your concept of the word "atheist" is anything more than "someone who doesn't believe in god or gods" then you would be wrong.

So...you are going to stick to the fiction that the only thing that makes an atheist an atheist...is a lack of belief in a god.

Okay.

Stick to it.

It's part of the reason you are my ideal atheist.
 
Re: Is There A God?

If you want to hear Frank's position on atheism, there's an entire thread full of hundreds of pages of him saying the same nonsense over and over again.

Summarized, his position is essentially: "Atheists require just as much faith as theists. I'm in the middle with no opinion whatsoever and because of that I'm the only rational person here. You have to accept every claim made by everyone until it's proven right or wrong."

Essentially, Frank doesn't believe in the burden of proof and thinks being an atheist requires explicitly stating "There is 100% no god". He can not be talked to or reasoned with, so you might as well not even try. To Frank, not making things up is the exact same thing as making things up. The only rational position is to float through life with no beliefs, convictions or truth of any kind. 'How dare you state you don't believe in unicorns! You can't prove they don't exist!'

Theist: God is real!
Atheist: I reject your claim until you provide evidence!
Frank: You're both equally faith-based!

Nah! Not even close!
 
Re: Is There A God?

Nah! Not even close!

No, Frank, that's exactly what you've been saying.

Person A: Unicorns exist
Person B: I don't believe you
Frank: You're both wrong because you can't make statements without evidence.

You've stated over and over and over again that atheists rejecting the claims of theists is illogical. I don't need evidence to reject unicorns just like I don't need evidence to reject god. If any evidence for either pops up, I'll adjust my world view accordingly, until then I'll simply have an atheistic lack of belief in both, and that requires exactly zero faith.

You are my ideal idea of an atheist, Pancake.





So...you are going to stick to the fiction that the only thing that makes an atheist an atheist...is a lack of belief in a god.

Okay.

Stick to it.

It's part of the reason you are my ideal atheist.

I hesitate to let you pollute another thread with your nonsense, but this is exactly what atheism is. I don't have a belief in god, therefore I am an atheist. That requires no faith of any kind.
 
Re: Is There A God?

If there is a "God" it certainly is not the "God" of the bible.

Which is 100% man made invention.

100%, eh? And you support that number how? I'm not going to say that the Bible hasn't had its share of man made changes, intentional and unintentional, but what evidence do you bring to support that none of it is true? I would put God and the God of the Bible akin to unicorns. Unicorns are and were simply one horned goats. They used to breed them for the Barnum and Bailey circus. I think someone still does, but I'm not positive. Stories and legends and exaggerations grew around it resulting in the myth of the equine shaped magical creature, but the unicorn has a basis in reality.
 
Re: Is There A God?

This thread was created in response to Frank Apisa's request for me to provide evidences for the existence of God. I didn't get the chance to do a research actually.....and didn't gather all the evidences that can be presented. There will be numerous evidences given, and no doubt there will be attempts at rebuttals for each and every one at them. They're listed not in the order of any ranking.

But at the end of the day.....the main evidence that I'll give - there's no getting around it if we're going to use logic - is the fact that all the evidences for God that will be given, are "CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE."

Cumulative evidence(s) reinforces one another (evidences) thereby producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.
It's synonymous with, "corroborative evidence," which confirms, or adds to previous evidence.


So, after I'd given several evidences for the existence of God.....the last evidence I'd put on your doorstep will be the "package" that contains all the evidences as a whole.



Let me just deal a factual blow to atheism, just so to get it out of the way: atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief.


Although there is no direct observational evidence as to the origin of the universe - no direct observational evidence as to how exactly it was created - we now have a good knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it - thanks to science, and to advanced technology - which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.
Intelligent Designers don't necessarily call the Designer, God......but followers of the Abrahamic religions, do.

Without further ado, here's the first evidence.



1. FINE-TUNING

The consistency of the physical law of the universe is evidence for having been planned/designed, and put in place.
Just the fact that we're situated in the suburbs of the Milky Way, where it's not crowded thus star collisions are rare, sort of reminds me of
the first rule for a successful business. LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION. :)


The nature of the universe is the best evidence for Design and how it came to be. One of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century....and we still add to our knowledge as new studies continue.
The Big Bang - with its dramatic hyper inflationary expansion (cause of it is unknown), but it's required for life to be possible in the universe.
The masses of quarks that has to be fine-tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Then we have to consider the large-just right size of the universe - exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
We have just the right laws of physics,too. Of course.

Although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by sheer accident or chance, it would be virtually impossible that
all of them would require such fine-tuning.
There are some physicists who have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just this current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more exacting are the initial conditions of the universe in its initial stage, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process.
For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the current universe would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its infancy.


Have you noticed? All those above that explained about the origin of the universe have numerous evidences that support one another.
Yep. We're talking CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE again here, folks. Just by the first evidence given - it has its own cumulative evidences.

Having cumulative evidences is evident on various differing individual evidence(s) that will be given to you.

There is a system in place here that deals with evidences for God, by the obvious looks of it.
Most, if not all, evidences that will be given to you have cumulative evidences supporting each and every one of them.

I see a PATTERN! Which is another evidence for DESIGN. :)

Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand. The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.
 
Re: Is There A God?

No, Frank, that's exactly what you've been saying.

Person A: Unicorns exist
Person B: I don't believe you
Frank: You're both wrong because you can't make statements without evidence.

You've stated over and over and over again that atheists rejecting the claims of theists is illogical. I don't need evidence to reject unicorns just like I don't need evidence to reject god. If any evidence for either pops up, I'll adjust my world view accordingly, until then I'll simply have an atheistic lack of belief in both, and that requires exactly zero faith.



I hesitate to let you pollute another thread with your nonsense, but this is exactly what atheism is. I don't have a belief in god, therefore I am an atheist. That requires no faith of any kind.

The question of the thread is "Is there a God?"

I am always headed in the direction of dealing with that question.

You are not even close to summarizing my position on anything, Rabid...and if it bothers you that I call attention to the fact that you are mischaracterizing my position...tough. I will do it anyway...and since it does impact on the OP...it is proper that I do so.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand. The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.

And any one of those people will offer a completely different and contradictory testimony to any of the other testimonies. I think it's funny how quick you christians are to pool all believers of all religions onto your side as if your numbers make it true. You still can't get past the fact that while there are roughly 2 billion christians, there are still 5 billion people who think you're full of ****.

The question of the thread is "Is there a God?"

I am always headed in the direction of dealing with that question.

You are not even close to summarizing my position on anything, Rabid...and if it bothers you that I call attention to the fact that you are mischaracterizing my position...tough. I will do it anyway...and since it does impact on the OP...it is proper that I do so.

Anyone who has even peeked in that monstrosity of a thread you've spammed knows that I'm representing your position as you've presented it. Being an atheist doesn't require a positive statement like "There is no god" and at no point have you ever been able to show that's a necessity.

There is an equal amount of evidence for god as there is for a 9 legged half-centaur half-octopus creature from outerspace. Zero. You don't walk around believing in that space creature like I don't walk around believing in god. There's no evidence so there's nothing needed to disprove.
 
Re: Is There A God?

And any one of those people will offer a completely different and contradictory testimony to any of the other testimonies. I think it's funny how quick you christians are to pool all believers of all religions onto your side as if your numbers make it true. You still can't get past the fact that while there are roughly 2 billion christians, there are still 5 billion people who think you're full of ****.

Why so nasty. Can't you ever discuss things without getting so riled and nasty?



Anyone who has even peeked in that monstrosity of a thread you've spammed knows that I'm representing your position as you've presented it. Being an atheist doesn't require a positive statement like "There is no god" and at no point have you ever been able to show that's a necessity.


Your characterization of my position is so full of inaccuracies, it would be foolish to list them.

Under any circumstances, it is obvious the reason you "characterize" my position on these issues rather than quote me in context...is because you realize that I am spot on when I address them.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand.
Absolutely

The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.
Evidence is the wrong term here. I would say the best reason to have faith in God's existence is the personal experience that people have in a living God that touches their lives every day.
I removed the billions of people sharing because their experiences may not (and almost certainly are not) identical and because it is hinting that because others believe something then you should accept it as well.
 
Re: Is There A God?

The most compelling answer would be all those individual evidence for design......CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES.......all lumped together as ONE!

So if you'll insist on one compelling evidence - I give you the CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES! You'll have to consider that as a whole.
If we're talking logic - surely you cannot disregard that glaring fact!

Cumulative nonsense is not equal to cumulative evidence no matter how much nonsense one puts into it.

Look, what a good location we are in, thereby this "god" concept exists - Is not logic, nor evidence.
 
Re: Is There A God?

And the Cambridge definition is nonsense. There is absolutely no logical need to say "I have a belief that I do not believe."

In the end that is what it is, a belief. If there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of something then one can only have a belief in said thing's existence or non-existence. Lack of knowledge of something does not constitute a belief in something's existence. Until I first heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I could not believe that it does not exist.
 
Re: Is There A God?

Attempting to prove the existence of God using secular standards of evidence and proof is a fool's errand. The best evidence for God's existence is the personal experience that billions of people share of a living God that touches their lives every day.

But personal experiences are anecdotal evidence and are not enough to support that an existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity truly exists.
 
Back
Top Bottom