Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Challenging Atheists

Hey there, a challenge to atheists....I am a believer in God and the word of the bible. Now without starting off an angry debate, I'd like to challenge any atheist within this group who thinks they can disprove God. I'd like to see the BEST arguments against the existence of God and all the plaudible reasons you can come up with for being an atheist. Facts, logical arguments all kinds, would love to hear what you have to say. Please as long as it isn't just some angry God bashing comments but real thought out answers!

Go on I may even relinquish my faith if you can disprove God to me! PM me or comment, whichever you prefer!





Key word: SCIENTIFICALLY, and just what kind of experiement could be performed anywhere to prove the existence of God that is all powerful, outside of time, and outside the universe also but also within it! How can you prove that with a scientifical experiment?! It's almost insulting to our intelligence that evidence of God is all around us and a scientifical experiment is not even necessary (or even capable of being performed.) Don't we look at mountain ranges, perfect skies, perfect love between people in awe and does that not reflect God? Okay so I'm preaching a bit without any hard evidence. But to be honest even if there was hard evidence people would deny it anyway. Wasn't Jesus Christ - hard evidence of God denied by people? I know you may not even believe there was a Jesus Christ and that he was divine...why not?



Is not the bible a reliable anecdotal evidence of God and Jesus Christ? A book that hasn't changed in 2000 years, written by MANY witnesses to Jesus Christ, a book that if untrue would've been denied and rejected by people as untrue back then in Jerusalem in 30AD - were they not there to confirm it and accept it otherwise it wouldn't have survived 2000 years? The central message of Christendom - the Christian creed is even older than the bible and still has not changed? Aside from the bible, there are also the the dead sea scrolls which verify the authenticity of not only the new testament but also the old testament. Furthermore there are the new testament papyri which agains show the bibles reliability  ( and these papyri are readily available in The British library and the Ashmolean museum in Oxford England. Not just the bible mentions Christ, but also ancient atheist writers such as Tacitas, also Josephus and Pliny the Younger (I think) mention Christ in their writings (Tacitas Book 15 of the Annals.)


You mention religious experiences, I to have never had what people might call a "religious experience" I never saw any angels, nor music from heaven....but that is just popular associated imagery to God (Haven't seen God in a grilled cheese sandwich either!) For me I just see the logic, I see the facts, I sense that we are made like God and by God logically. And that is something you can test to, live more like how God intended for us to and you'll find more joy and blessing in life - so it shows that God must've made us and therefore knows what is good for us! Test it if you don't believe me!


I understand your objections however as I am sure there are people who are making things up (the bible even mentions this of people coming in the name of God falsely) and people who are dishonest like the book of Mormon which is clearly made up with only 2 guys as witnesses to its authenticity who happen to be related! Christianity has bad "ambassadors" if you like to it, many Christians can give a bad impression of the bible, however this does not somehow make the bible false, it simply just shows people are sinful. Oh and I'm sure neutrological malfunction could also account for some of the weird things people experience to. The above is a problem with "religion" not with the truth in Christ or God.


An extra argument I would like to put out is also our morality. If there is no God, where does morality come from and why is morality universal amongst us (I.e we ALL think murder/rape/torture etc is wrong)? Some argue it is some kind of biological adaption to enable our survival and reproduction. If that is so then why is rape considered wrong, wouldn't rape benefit the survival of our species by having more offspring? But no, if I ask any one of you if you think it is right to rape or murder someone everyone altogether will say NO. I think points strongly towards God. Are they not the same thing God abhorrs also?



I think you are right about faith healing, though I cant personally verify it, is most likely a placebo effect. Most people wouldn't have the true faith to really perform such a miracle and any healing properties I think would be placebo. I say this as Jesus performed miracles, but then also so did his disciples. So I don't think it impossible faith healing. Certainly more plausible than magic though! Turning people into frogs! Yeah!


Well certainly the resurrection of Christ was from God, it's written in the bible the inspired word of God, and predicted hundreds of years before the new testament also. And if it wasn't from God, so someone pretended to be Christ and went so far as to be tortured, battered and killed? And conveniently happened to EXACTLY match the predicted Christ. (Check the book of Isaiah in your bible, or dead sea scrolls, or NT papyri, you choose!) There are over 500 witnesses for Christs resurrection, an empty tomb, and the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea so it would have been known to Roman, Jew, Christian alike. I think is mentioned in the book of Corinthians in a letter written by Paul - written not 5 years after Jesus'death. How do you explain an empty tomb? It was predicted and there were witnesses again. Just read the bible!



If you throw a ball in the air it is definitely going to come down and hit the ground again. But if you catch it before it does have you just defied the laws of gravity and created a miracle?



Many religions are out there to "choose" from. But let's not look at it like a religion supermarket where we choose our fave religion. Each of these religions claims to contain truth of God etc, so if they all conflict and contain different information that means some are going to wrong, all actually except 1 will be right. Truth is truth. There is this modern tendancy where people seem to think if you believe somethings true then it is true for you. This is clearly not right, for instance if you believe the earth is flat you are obviously mistaken, you beliving it is true doesn't make it anymore true, you are just mistaken. So only 1 religion is right. 


Christianity is the only religion where you cannot offer works or do things for God. Nothing you can offer is good enough, you cannot earn your way there in any way. You are INVITED to join the father in heaven if you simply accept the invitation with heart and mind. And obviously you cannot accept it if you don't believe it's true. It's funny many other "gods" out there all require people to do things for them, which to the God of the world is simply insulting really implying he hasn't already got whatever he wants and that WE, mere mortals actually have something to offer which He wouldn't have without us. I think this shows off the glory of God greatly!


Ultimately when it comes to finding the right religion, it is simply a case of finding the truth not what just suits your beliefs. The truth is there.



I disagree with you straight away about Christianity changing to ,eet the perceived needs of the time. Religon might change but the God of the world does not, nor has the bible since it was compiled. Infact there is really no need for the bible to change or evolve its still 100% relevant even today. Just read the book of Daniel it is a great example of a relevant issue that is the same today!


The old testament is the old covenant with the Jew's before the coming of Jesus. God ruled directly over the Jew's in this covenant as in the desert with Moses and on the battle fields with King David and other kings where he would give the enemy into David's hands. The law also included stoning to death anyone comitting adultery, murder, rape etc it seems like brutal stuff and it is. But the thing we need to observe is that God was present with Israel then and sin could have NO place in Gods presense so it was punishable by death. It says in the bible the wages of sin are death (that is still true today.) If God were all powerful and loving he couldn't allow sin to spread amongst his people (it did anyway) and you can read in the bible the bitter consequences of it. I think peoples shock at the sin deserving death comes from people simply not appreciating the genuine evil they are committing and dont forget they were in God's presense! The people of Sodom who God destroyed, that could be argued as bloodthirsty. But however it was because not 1 single person there was righteous, all were corrupt. Theres even a quote in the bible where God basically says (paraphrasing) "If there was JUST 1 righteous person there I wouldn't destroy them" however there were none.


Anyways this is the old testament covenant a new covenant was formed with Jesus, rather than us die for our sins Jesus died instead as the ultimate sacrifice and so we could come to the  Father. Thus no more stonings. 


Please if you could point anymore inconsistencies you find? Sorry I dont mean that sarcastically but anymore examples you could come up with?



This is an interesting logical argument. But I think you are just wrong on this ocasion as if God were all powerful then again its impossible for him to create something he can't do, also impossible for him to mistakes also. This is a real paradox with what you're saying. It is impossible for God to create say a weight he couldn't lift because God is all powerful. It's a circular argument as God could create a weight he couldnt lift but also there is no weight he couldn't lift either!



You're absolutely right that all of Gods creation has gone exactly to plan even to this day. Nothing has gone wrong. 


You may think of all the evil in the world (which is permitted by God) and wonder how it could have gone to plan? The evils of the world are often what draw us closer to God, when we desperately need Him. When theres suffering people quite often turn to God as no other alternative and find Love and satisfaction there. You see they maybe suffering in the world, but they have their eternal souls also which is what God is saving and what matters. The bible says it quite clearly and its quite logical to, "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his immortal soul?" If you're rich and healthy and peaceful now on earth, what does it count for when you're dead? Nothing. Your riches, your health, peace are nothing. We put too much importance on these thing and commit sin with our contented worldliness never thinking we are going to die. 


"And how disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless. In wartime not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever."


 - The screwtape letters C.S Lewis (essential reading if you're an atheist informing you of who you are being manipulated by. SHOCKING reading, you might even find you're similar to the "patients" mentioned in it!)


God is Love. True Love could not exist without the possibility to hate also. Which makes the choice to love so beautiful amongst so much evil. That is the freewill that God gave us. You're right about God being all knowing and that contradicting freewill I don't have an answer to that! It's a real paradox! The wonders of God surely!


I've seen the quote in the bible about the 1 sin that can't be forgiven about denying the Holy spirit. Again I have no idea about that. So sure I have my unanswered questions and my doubts do come up for me sometimes but my faith is stronger and I see more plausible arguments for Christendom than Atheism or any other religion!


Well thats the end of my response. Hope you find it an interesting read! Sorry about response time I've only just been able to muster up the energy to write a full response! Thanks for taking the time to write to me Phage I've only addressed your argument out of all the comments (so feel special!!) so far. I may write another response to other arguments from other users another time. All at once it is JUST SO MUCH WRITING. 


One last quote from the Screwtape letters:




"Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous--that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real".

Remember, he is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (Oh that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!) you don't realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear What He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle it the end of a morning", the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind", he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No .73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere logic". He is now safe in Our Father's house.

You begin to see the point? Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes. Keep pressing home on him the ordinariness of things."




If you don't even consider the possibility of God now, or search Him out, then I'd say its quite simply you don't WANT to believe in God.




~~~~~~~~~~RESPONSE TO MSTITI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Altruism definition: Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness. 


That is hardly what you are talking about which is pure selfishness, "selfish gene" type theory. There are a number of these type of books. I remember reading "***** wars" as an atheist an finding it extremely life minimalising and highly derogatory to us, especially women! If we really were animals, and of course many of us can become like animals through our behaviour and conduct then I would not be writing this I'd be out having group sex on the street with lots of girls whilst murdering all the men in sight trying to allow my genes to live forever through my offspring. Don't animals do this already, you've seen the wild life shows the males fighting each other off and having sex with all the females?


If rape has low chance of pregnancy at 15% which is the same as normal intercourse then whats the difference? That will means that rape would be a viable reproduction strategy. If rape only had a 5% chance of pregnancy and normal intercourse had 15% then you might have an argument there. But you are right....people aren't animals like that, rape isnt done for that intention, it is as you said for power and domination etc. However if we were animals it might not be for that reason which seperates us from animals. You dont see animals having irrational or "unhelpful" emotions, animals dont commit suicide or do self destructive things like we do.....


Also one other point if rape really were considered an advantageous reproduction strategy then there wouldn't just be 1 act of rape but MULTIPLE by many different people so I think conception would be just as likely as if it were just between a consenting partner. If you don't think this gang rape couldn't happen, well it already does as I'm sure you know if you watch the news! Sorry hope this isn't too disgusting for you, understand from what you said it is a sensitive issue for you and it is a disgusting thing I think also.



PS: One other point to "altruism" amongst us that you describe, maybe it isn't just a selfish gene survival strategy and it is just Love for each other that you're describing but with a different label of "selfish genes"?


PPS: I will add that I did used to believe in "selfish gene theory" purely because I behaved like such an animal I was able to recognise my own behaviour in that theory. 





----------------------------------------------RESPONSE TO PHAGE-------------------------------------------------------------


But if God is God and is outside of the universe and time then theres very little a bubbling test tube is going to do to prove God. Though I do not deny that there could be evidence for God within science, its something I hope to get around to doing more thoroughly. The problem is only relying on science for our answers, we seem to have idolised, and even mythologised science, worshipping it as a sort of idol or beacon of truth. Though there is nothing wrong with science in itself, it is only one way of looking at things, and looking at things from the outside. It is just 1 'lense' at looking at things. You should try to look at things also through other 'lenses' like theology. There is plenty of evidence also within the world, right under our noses that defys our understanding also, look at what science doesn't yet/or maybe never will understand, and what we're confused about and don't understand. We don't always understand the things in life, death, relationships, our "purpose" our "existence" these are all things we want to know about, and are often confused about - we want to know what they are but can't seem to find out or we distract ourselves from them by closing our minds. Science can't tell us why, only what is there before us, from the outside. Trying to use science as reason is flawed.

You are right about mountains, love and all things nice don't necessarily prove the existence of the Christian God, they don't specify that they are the work of the Islamic God or Jewish God either. But I think when you look at the "intelligence" of the design of our world, the fact that it is a miraculous balance that enables life. If the world were any closer to the sun we would all burn, but instead we don't we are able to live, same if the earth were any further from the sun. And you know what the chances of all that happening are? Enough to put dusty old hard hearted atheism on the shelf. If all the beauty in our world was by chance and not a miracle and not of someones design it would not be beautiful, it would be meaningless. Beauty itself would be meaningless. But anyways, it doesn't prove Christianity, but it is evidence of the existence of a "deity" as you all like to refer.

You are right also that a great many people have claimed, and do claim to be prophets. It is understandable and right not to take these people seriously. But look at this way, of all the false prophets out there, which of them have any evidence for them performing miracles or being divine of any kind? And obviously many people have made wild claims like these, but whose names can you actually think of? None except Jesus, who is the most famous Man and God in history. Nevermind famous celebrities who are famous for 10 years or even a career. Jesus has been famous for 2000 years, and even longer when people were anticipating his arrival so more than 2000 years!!! Before the foundations of the earth!

I think me and you are reaching a point in our arguments where we are gonna find it hard to argue anymore without us repeating ourselves and having to move away from you might call "hard evidence" and a scientic microscope view because I think these will not do. I mean we're told anyway by God that there will be no miraculous signs to prove His existence in the bible, except finally at the end when He comes again to judge the world and us souls on it! At which point it is too late for any unrepentant people. But anyway, we'll go on and see how it goes!

Well there are many characters throughout history that are recorded in books, like Napolean, Henry VIII, Guy Fawkes. I mean surely we all happily accept the reliability of history books about them, we have faith that what we're told about these fellows is true. So, why not the account of Jesus, which have been accounted for by more people, and accepted for longer as truth? I disagree with you that most people would accept hard evidence of Jesus as God, I mean the Jew's of 3AD whenever it was got to witness Jesus, His miracles and wisdom first hand and yet many didn't believe in him, they thought it blasphemy that He claimed to be God. If there is evidence for something surely we believe it. Like there is evidence from satellite photos that the world is spherical. But sure we can research, and find more evidence, and find out whether the evidence is reliable. It would be foolish just to point blank reject the evidence unless you had grounds, or if your point of view then came to have no evidence and credibility then you change your point of view and your belief based on new evidence.

You don't have good enough reason to believe He was divine? I mean I sort of understand, I provided you with evidence and other stuff as evidence for Jesus and God. But it is a hard thing to accept as truth, it's something I struggled with before as we don't know just how locked, and DEAD our heart is and it needs reviving! It's a very personal, spiritual, issue of the heart. Yes, yes I know I'm preaching away! You kinda said it, that we are rarely offered unequivocal evidence for things, yet we happily believe other things as truth, we just dont want to accept Jesus because as you said again, it would we would have to change and it would show us up as being the evildoers that we are. When you live in darkness long enough, it becomes your light, so when actual light comes in to save us from our ourselves we dont welcome it because we love the dark too much now. It's a hard thing to do, becoming a believer in the Christian God is NOT easy. It's riddled with doubts, painful confessions, demons from the past, hard hearted accepting the truth. Like CS Lewis described his conversion to Christendom as a child kicking and screaming. What better evidence is there for aliens over God?

First off, the Bible has NOT changed. It has indeed though been copied and translated many times though, but despite this it is possible to compare ancient Greek Bibles to present day and see they are infact unchanged. Have a look at this old bible, its 1600 years old. Reads exactly the same as my "new international" version of the bible.

And you are wrong about the bible being written by people who hadn't met him, as the first 4 books of the New testament are accounts of his disciples themselves, not to mention Peter also! Well, I didn't just mention the dead sea scrolls, I also mentioned the new testament papyri which can be seen in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford if you live in the UK They along with the dead sea scrolls contain books of the bible and recount history of that time and are in agreement, but also the writers I mentioned such as Tacitas, also record history of that time, and all mention Jesus Christ, so surely that at least can be assumed to be true as we have 3 sources of information. As for the history mentioned in the Bible, I trust its authenticity, it would have no reason to lie (think about it), but that isn't entirely the point of the Bible, it's the inspired word of God, its designed to cause people to know God and allow God to save their souls and cause them to repent and change their lives to being centred around God. It's not an encyclopedia of history. If God is our creator then certainly He knows what is best for us and what we need, its arrogant to assume we do (which we do arrogantly assume. Me included.) Another way of looking at the Bible is, the fact its a totally intricate span of books written over a span of over 1500 years, I don't see how a human acting alone could have planned that if it werent divinely inspired. Anyways can you find any evidence that the bible is NOT accurate in its recollection of history back then?

Big lie principle, well I see it works both ways. It's either a HUGE lie if you say there is no "deity" when there is and I was gonna say its just as huge a lie if you say there is a deity when there isn't...but to be honest it wouldn't be, because we couldn't be accountable to God if we said it, and it would be meaningless anyway and there would be no consequences of Hell etc. But if you say there is no deity when there is, then you're in trouble! So I think that principle works against atheism, its a much bigger thing to say there is no God, and atheism comes with scientific evidence against God and men in authroity such as Richard Dawkin claiming it isn't true, everyone believes it, Big lie principle right there!

Though the Big lie principle didn't work with Jesus, He made BIG claims, and he came with the authroity that he demonstrated by being able to heal people and drive out demons and save the the whole of humanity! But few believed him, like you guys! And why would he lie? He was hated, tortured and murdered for it, hardly any human incentive to lie (though he wasn't human as such.)

I see much joy in living the way God intended us to. You shouldn't look at God putting "restrictions" on sexual stuff, they're not, they're the blueprints of how sexuality should be properly done. He designed it, so why should we tell Him how it is better to have it. Truthfully, any deviating from Gods blueprints from sex is just corrupt sex. And anyone who isn't a virgin, and has had sex outside of marriage (for example) knows the pain and grief of then finding that person we were intimate with gone from our lives, or leave us, or hurt us, or use us. Surely sex is meant to be enjoyed, it shouldnt cause these things, but thats because we choose to have sex outside of marriage and go into all sorts of perversions that just hurt us because we think we know best. Truly, sex is BEST enjoyed in a marriage by two people that love each other, aren't selfish (doesnt just quickly climax, roll off and ignore his woman or disappear in the morning) marriage protects us from these things as the two are committed to each other. AND most all WE KNOW these things to be true because we have experienced them!!

Yep you're quite right, we should scrutinise things before just blindly accepting things as true. Though, there is the risk here is over scrutinsing something, and basically, nit picking, going over tiny uninportant details that may agree/disagree and coming to a conclusion on something so small and insignificant. I don't know if there are any non-christian corroborations on the miracles of Jesus, might be another thing to research, but if they were non Christian they wouldn't have believed the miracles anyway and wouldnt have written about them. I mean unless Jesus was playing tricks and when he changed water to wine he just quickly swapped the jugs and they saw him and wrote down that he was a trickster! A man willing to die for "tricks"....hmm....

Morality as proof of God...I didnt feel that the detail was "lovely" though, extremely crude and degrading to us. That theory - which I used to believe when I was an atheist is so, so , so negative and degrading. Personally I disagree with you when you say rape is an ineffective tool for reproduction, I think it could be highly effective at expanding our population. If we were all raping each other, think of how many more acts of sex that is, and the fact you wouldnt rape someone once, but probably many times - I think pregnancy and childbirth would increase. Besides if we're "fair" and care about others who are hurt then rape could never evolve as a strategy (even if it is good for expanding the population) because it isn't fair, its not remotely caring and is disgusting and twisted. If we care so much about "reproductive tools" besides rape, then why do we have contraception? It shows that reproduction isnt necessarily whats on our minds like animals but sexual pleasure, perversion, intimacy, using people etc.

A minority of people, do seem to appear to have no conscience...we can see that with figures in history like Hitler for example. I don't see any proof that it is biological reasons that cause it though - in that we are born like it. I don't believe that and would like to see some evidence for that first before even considering it. Well I don't know you personally, but do not seeing images of those things, or hearing stories of torture or murder cause you fear, or grief in anyway? Without lying to yourself can you say that? Would torture to you, if you were being tortured simply be meaningless, would you not cry out for help, and scream in pain, and weep and wish it wasn't you being tortured, and then would you feel a sense of wanting "justice" or revenge against that person who did it? The fact you would want revenge against that person (I can safely assume you would), to get justice, also shows you reflecting God's image. Justice in blood, like the cross of Jesus, God's justice. Have you ever tried to live Gods way? You can test God in this, turn away from all the things you do, and trust God, and keep his commands and see if you aren't totally blessed, and relieved from any burdens. TRY IT!!! You owe it to yourself, as does everyone to at least "try" God and read the Bible.

I think that all people get a conscience, I mentioned earlier about Hitler, even a HUGE murderer such as him has a conscience. You see alot of murderers who kill their victims then kill themselves, they have a conscience and so carry out justice on themselves by blood. Justice by blood. There's a definite conencton between the two. You know when people are wronged badly, they say "I want blood."

So, you are an atheist, you dispute the existence of God, a long with others in here, and yet, you haven't read it. You owe it to yourselves to read it! You can't possibly knock soemthing till you've tried it! You know how that goes! I know its a long book, took me ages to read it, but you need to, as much as any other of your books like "God delusion" by Richard Dawkin if you've read it. I don't think you can get much crazier than believing you're God, but then how do you measure craziness? Lol....Jesus was tortured and killed because he claimed to be the son of God and was the leader of a "cult" or just his disciples which the Romans I think didn't care about. It was the Jew's themselves that wanted Him to be crucified, the Roman Pontias Pilate didn't want to crucify as he found him innocent! And even a Roman centurion professed he was the son of God.

Well, we are all happy to believe other history books about other historical characters, its just Jesus we have a problem with believing in. There is no way Jesus, being dead (but lets assume he was just stunned or something for arguments sake) in a whipped, beaten to hell, holes in hands and legs could have rolled a huge stone away form his tomb entrance, and it was a tomb carved into stone, theres no way out!! Plus the Jews posted guards outside the tomb to prevent any of the discples from emptying the tomb (so that they could then claim that Jesus has risen when he hadn't.) But comes down to whether you trust the accounts of this and its evidence.

Explain to me how it couldn't be a miracle? I used it as a way of showing that miracles aren't by magic spells or the like but it can simply be God reaching his hand in to disrupt the normal course of things. Like gravity in this case. It's just a different way of looking at what a miracle is.

I said that God can't be earned by works like other religions by gifts, token gestures etc. It is simple given and we either accept it or reject it. Of course out of love for God we make gestures to people and to him, to honour him. Just not to earn him. It's like you give the roses to your lover as a sign of your love, not to earn their love. But just bare in mind that God doesn't NEED anything from us, because all belongs to God already, like a child who borrows money off of his father to buy him a present, the father is pleased at the thought, but it is nothing he didn't already have and the child can take no credit for being so good etc.

I am angry at your assertion about my lack of understanding about other religions because you you yourself openly argue with me about the Christian God but are not familiar with the Bible!!!

I think I've said enough. The rest of your points I'll leave. It is better for you to read the Bible instead, and as I've been repeating, you owe it to yourself. I can't convince you to believe, it has to be your search for truth and God. But I have achieved what I wanted here in this forum and nobody has been able to offer a single good reason to stop believing in God. There might be some amongst all these pages of comments, but theres too many to read and your arguments seemed to be the best out of the ones I saw.

Oh heres a link about old testament law versus new testament:
that should answer your question.

PS. What you believe is impossible to as I have said already! I have been very open minded with you and have looked at evidence for each argument you put up and have reasonably concluded that God does exist. How is that close minded?

PPS. I wish you well and good luck in your research! REMEMBER: READ THE BIBLE. hehe



The5Cs The5Cs 18-21 421 Responses Sep 28, 2009

Your Response


Oh Max, we have been over this, remember?
You start off talking about the beginning of the universe (along with some nebulous claim about what the majority of cosmologists supposedly say... that statement has no meaning, Max) - and then suddenly switch to talking about the expansion of the universe.
What is your topic here, Max? The origin of the universe or the expansion of the universe?
Two different topics, Max... you know that.
i know that i've already schooled you on BVG (and especially on what Vilenkin has said about the sort of nonsense you are trying to introduce here), and i'm quite happy to do it again, if necessary, but i'm astonished that the lesson doesn't seem to have taken root the first time around.

The premise that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

As such, the fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

Oh Max, are you really still peddling the same old shonky arguments?
"The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology"
What you'll find is a statement that the universe began to expand
Everything else you write after this opening howler is, therefore, pointless.

With this reality in mind, consider the following:

If your gods exist, then they had a cause.
If they had no cause then you are claiming that they were just always there.
If you can make that claim about your gods, why not just make the same claim about the universe, thereby cutting out the middleman and simplifying matters nicely.

Simple, mundane logic


The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology.

With this reality in mind, consider the following:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
(3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

(4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.
(5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.
(6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

As you can see, in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the syllogism's premisses.

In other words, it's simple, mundane logic.

I'm surprised no one has used Occam's razor principle in these arguments. It's fun to watch you mortals butt heads.

I will disprove Jehovah when you disprove the twenty seven hundred, ninety-nine other religions to have deities at some point in human history.

. . .

. . .

. . .


You can disprove reality? Really?

(This I gotta see ...)

Please proceed ...

Reality: the quality or state of being actual or true.

No, I cannot disprove truth. God is not a truth. Sorry.

But I don\'t to disprove Jehovah, for the same reasons Christian sermons never begin with: \"There is no Odin, Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, the Great Spirit, Thor, Jupiter, Allah, and all other gods but Jehovah, because . . .\"

When you understanding why you reject all *other* religions, you will understand why I reject yours.

It is critically ironic that we agree on at least one thing--all religions *except* Christianity are bullshit. I just take one further.

Just tossing my two cents sorry for interrupting but your assertion of other gods is a red-herring because of the fact that no one actually and traditionally follows or loves Odin, Zeus, Ra, Thor, Jupiter and some others, we can disprove those based on popularity and lack of historical evidence on their existences alone while \'Jehovah\' I rather call him Yahweh\'s existence is verified by the very DNA that\'s designed and coded into the atomic existence we behold today. Creation has a spoken language and that is through God\'s creation of the universe and the world, just take a look into archeology, mathematics, philosophies, apologetics, metaphysics, psychology, anthropology, christology, bibliology, harmartiology, astronomy, biochemistry, history, physics and other bodies of human knowledge, and you will discover Him.

To disprove the other gods, you use *argumentum ad numerum,* and that doesn\'t make sense. Truth is not based on consensus.

Moreover, not only is our DNA explained by the gradual evolutionary slope, even if it were designed, it could be designed by *any* god. The farthest your argument goes is deism.

It makes plenty of sense, the truth to you is relative am I correct? Therefore there has to be an absolute truth and an objective truth. Since you do not believe in God all you depend on is relativity and subjectivity, which is based on opinion alone than actual truth that stands on it\'s own. Otherwise there MUST be a consensus that is how human beings come to final decisions, you have to agree with what is right and what is wrong also correct? It\'s the same thing. Some votes are more valid than others due to reality\'s basis.

DNA is too complex and too sophisticatedly crafted not to mention unique within every single organism that exists to be a mere evolutionary factor, the building blocks had to start somewhere before it could \'evolve\' further the engine keeps running because the driver provides the fuel without the driver there is only chaos and discord, otherwise it screams design from an sentient intelligence!

God is not absent from his creation. Now to say it could be designed by any God you would have compare the physical and invisible qualities of the universe and the world in order to point it towards that very specific God that created the abstract and concrete, matter and non-matter.

What are you talking about? No, not correct. Not even remotely correct.

Truths are objective, and do not require a god to be such. It was widely believed that Earth was flat; by your standards, it became truth until people disagreed.

And since you base \"truth\" of changing opinions, you would be the one who has subjective (and incorrect) truths.


Richard Dawkins addresses this in his book, \'The God Delusion.\' He is stating that everything appears designed because evolution is a gradual slope, selecting, naturally, the key traits required. Oh, and it has had three billion years, so . . . little bit of time there.


Yes, about the abstract and concrete, matter and non-matter--all gods claim to do that.


And moreover, who created God? If God is required create human intelligence, that surely, Supreme God is required to create God intelligence. And surely, Infinitely Supreme God is required to create Supreme God intelligence. And surely, Doubly Infinitely Supreme God is required to create Infinitely Supreme God. And so continues the paradox.


Why is there anything at all instead of nothing? Explore this question and, at the end, you\'ll find the reality of God as these learned ones did:

\"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.\" - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? ( Go figure! :)

If truth is objective then God exists because the truth does not change. God does not change and the truth is judged by an objective and sovereignly higher standard that transcends humanity, that standard is God himself. You have to understand what God\'s nature is because the truth is a non-material quality of God. Like mathematics, the laws of logic are transcendent truths which God created. God also cannot lie. For lies are contrary to his nature, just like God cannot be tempted with evil, again contrary to his nature.
Please this argument has been rebuked already.
Why would THE CREATOR need a CREATOR? Do you see the circular illogical fallacy you committed? God made everything: time/space/matter/spiritual/, he is eternal, not bound by the laws HE created. He can also utilize the laws he ordained in order to act upon the supernatural in a seemingly miraculous way as we do not completely understand how these laws are operated according to his design, for he knows far more about them than we do. We can only know the basic principles.
He (Dawkins) also stated and mentioned The Creator many times throughout his angry unintelligible diatribe you call a book, however pride and vanity in his \'intelligence\' clouded him from the ultimate truth because deeper science reveals God\'s nature and attributes and unique fingerprints. Einstein himself believed in God due to his passion for science as he recognized these same things. He just didn\'t believe in a personal God. Many other scientists also believe in God even Yahweh. Evolution requires intelligent design.

God designated evolution within his creation to grow and flourish and adapt overtime, he assigned micro evolution, ie through natural selection and environmental conditions. God instilled His Creation the instinctive demand to adapt and reconcile with their environment accordingly, furthermore one species can also produce many different varieties. However, that species always has the same gene pool.

Without God and intelligent design, microevolution cannot operate or fluctuate on it\'s own, there has to be an order or there is only discord. God made the laws that we are able to observe and study, he is not bound by them since He Is The Creator, however he can operate within His Laws however he chooses that does not contradict his nature.
Romans 1:20 \"For since the creation of the world God\'s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.\"

Mind listing these \'gods\' who \'claimed\' to create the universe and the world? Next we can begin comparing their qualities and attributes to Romans 1:20 to check if they verify with this \'claim\' as Yahweh\'s theological/biblical/scientific nature matches perfectly.

I am not a God-of-the-Gaps theorist. Because science can\'t explain it, doesn\'t mean you need a magic fairy. Moreover, you have no way of deducing which magic fairy to choose.

\"A lack of scientific evidence is not proof of God. It is proof of a lack of scientific evidence.\"-Lawrence Krauss.

And by the way, 93% of *elite* scientists deny the philosophy of . . . religion. Odd. You seem so certain science was contrarian to atheism.

If you\'re going to continue referencing, very illogically, a theoretically non-disprovable deistic God-of-the-Gaps, I am going to ignore you.

\"Is that how you want to play it? A God-of-the-Gaps? Because if you use little pockets of the unknown as your proof of God, then God is an ever-receding gap of scientific ignorance!\"-Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist.

P.S. If \'The God Delusion\' is angry, unintelligible rambling, I would hate to see your definition of scripture, such as Deuteronomy, or Leviticus.

Why would you ignore me because of my defense? God is provable very provable (especially scientifically) for He has revealed himself through His Creation that can be scientifically studied and also through The Bible. You don\'t have much knowledge of the scriptures which is your down-fall Deuteronomy and Leviticus were given to the Jews (Israelites) during the foundation of their nation to build their ethics and social customs and laws during the ancient days. You have to study and examine the Hebrew and Greek archives of the terminologies used to write the books as they were originally written to understand the context, history, meanings, ethics, cultural meaning of the scriptures.

The original translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles are the correct interpretations of the scriptures to reveal the exact context and validity of The Word through critically diligent studies, examinations, analysis and discernment, to prevent discord and misinterpretations supplemented with faithfully righteous prayer as well. (Acts 17:11)

I\'m not playing games or using gaps. I\'m speaking my defenses with reasonable arguments. (1 Peter 3:15) I hope you learn to realize that God doesn\'t play dice with the universe. Your lack of knowledge of God and the true understanding of the scriptures is true ignorance in this \'debate\'.

BTW are you going to give me that list of gods to compare with Yahweh to match Romans 1:20? :) Or bother trying to refute my other posts? Or do you not have a response to them? If not that is fine.

I refuse to argue a God-of-the-Gaps. You\'re saying \"God must . . .\" Well, no. Just because science does not comprehend how it\'s done does not mean it must be a god.

As for the farthest stance-deism-I invite you to replace any mention of \"God\" or \"LORD\" in the Bible with \"Odin\" or \"Ra\" or \"Vishnu.\" It becomes no less improbable.

The sad thing about atheism-really, the only sad thing-is that if I am right, I will never know; if I am wrong, you\'re god will prove to be an *******.

10 More Responses

'god' is the glue that holds this whole thing together,
he is not found in your churches, temples, or is it something that we can contemplate.
'god' is the peace love compassion that is in our soul - heart - energies
'god' does not judge, forsake nor comfort
because "god" is you, in every planet, every star, every cell
we keep looking for this to be outside of our being, when is it everything in our very being
it is in the "silence" of the mind and the listening with the heart, that will lead us to gathering of our energies that is 'god' (love peace so on)!

And what of the Creator? The One who brought everything into existence?

Max, when you say \" everything\", by definition, that would include *everything*, including any creator, assuming there is one. I\'m going to talk to you as if I were your English teacher, but you should say \"who created everything else\".

You, forgot something, it\'s not any creator, it is the jehovah\'s witness god. What else could it be?


I. So long as you understood the thrust of my rejoinder :)

II. Baby steps :)

The Bible is a plagiarized set of mythologies taken from other cultures the illiterate sheep herders had contact with. The creation myth, the story of the flood, angels, the devil, virgin birth resurrection, all these were taken from Sumerian, Egyptian, Assyrian and Persian mythologies. Water into wine is taken directly from Grecian mythology. So the Bible is literally a stolen mythology. The word of many gods across many centuries.

Actually, you\'ve got it backwards. Its the pagans who plagiarized the Bible, not the other way around. Remember, the Bible was composed first.

Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary; Horus was born of a virgin, Iris.

Jesus was the only begotten son of Jehovah; Horus was the only begotten son of Osiris.

Jesus\'s birth was heralded by the North Star; Horus\'s birth was heralded by the star Sirius.

Jesus, in infancy, was attacked by Herod; Horus, in infancy, was attacked by Herut.

Jesus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and cured blindness; Horus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and cured blindness.

Jesus was crucified; Horus was crucified.

Jesus went to Hell; Horus went to Hell.

Jesus came back after three days; Horus came back after three days.

I\'m pretty sure the Egyptians came before the Romans. you should really do your homework and thorough research...recycling defeated arguments is a shame.


Check your facts. Messianic prophecies are from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, these predate the Egyptian myths that plagiarized them.

But it wasn\'t. And we know that as historical fact. The hebrews could not write down the stories or even come up with such a complex mythology. But the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Sumerians and Assyrians did have the tools too create such complicated myth. This isn\'t conjecture its fact. The Bible is an old book for sure but the societies it was stolen from were far older and more advanced.


Argumentum assertio does not a substitute for actual evidence make. Sorry, try again.

Very singsongy of you, but considering we have older Assyrian, Egyptian and Sumerian texts stating these myths before the Hebrews were Hebrews...this is fact Max. You don\'t seem to like it. But the Bible is plagarized.

That\'s a non sequitur since extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures are reproductions of older texts no longer extant. You\'re comparing apples to oranges.

The Egyptians came up with rhwse myths a full millenia before there were Hebrews at all let alone Hebrews who could write.

Yet more fallacious argumentum assertio. Aut disce aut discede.

Max talking about learning!

8 More Responses

"I am an atheist" "Challenging atheists"
Okay, there's my first point. You're a liar.
Second point, damn I didn't want to read it all because nothing going on inside your head will make me change my mind, but my eyes caught the word "rape". I don't know what rape has to do with theism/atheism. People are the only animals that rape. The body doesn't know the difference between rape and consensual sex, so why bring it up? If conditions are right for her to get pregnant, she will. I don't see how rape can be relevant to an argument about an imaginary person in your mind.

I read just the first paragraph of this post before I switched off. wtf is this christian doing here? Can he not read that this experience is entitled "I am an atheist"? Isn't there an experience on this site for Christians? The thing that annoys me most about christians is that so many of them go around attempting to convert everyone else! You people go and believe anything you want, just don't bug me about it

You may not have picked the right story if you want well ordered debate. The threads on here are more interwoven than A Game of Thrones. There\'s some interesting points but a heck of a lot of nonsensical cut and paste trolling to wade through to get there.....


Happy Thursday! If I may, where, in your opinion, does the Bible condone slavery. More importantly, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone\'s values as immoral?

*YAWN* Listen, I'm not going to read all this ****. I can't believe people join a group they don't believe in just so they can argue. They have the entire internet for that. I have NEVER seen anything that is supernatural. If god (which god? There are so many.......) wanted people to believe in him, he'd show them more than a reflection in a window.

Proof of the preternatural and of God's existence:

Proof, Max..? Your idea of proof is link to your own copy-pastes?


The expressions of these - actual professionals of science, btw, not fanboys - debunks your allegation that as one learns more and more about science becoming an atheist is inexorable. In fact, given the statistics I referred you to, it seems the opposite is more likely.

Hence, my invitation for you to delve deeper into the sciences instead of being content with your current cosmetic level of apprehension.

Are you referring to that Pew survey, Max?

Are you referring to that Pew survey, Max?

I believe in God c:

As did the men in your avatar, yes?

At least I have something to fall back on. Whereas science won't get you anywhere after you die.
Good luck.

Neither will religion.good luck.

There's no where to go!

Guess we will just have to live our lives and not fear death.

True for anyone. We shall. I hope you will see the light. Consequences are the same for everyone in a society of laws. We have many purposes. Life matters. We just do not live our lives for death.

I comprehend it fine. I just stopped believing in invisible creatures when I matured. Just because you haven't, does not make us un-purposed. If you want to waste your life living for some utopian dreamland that does not and could never exist, you are welcome to your delusion. Just don't be surprised when you die and the electrical impulses die that you just vanish from existence and there is no afterlife.

I realize this is beyond your comprehension, so I will leave you to your fantasy.

One cannot deny that which does not exist. Do you deny Cthulthu?

While it may be nice to have religion to fall back on and give you hope, it's false hope. We must all face the fact that the only place we go when we die is the ground. You shouldn't be religious just because you're scared of death, but that's one of the main reasons that religion still prevails in the modern age of science.


I agree 1000% because all scientists are atheists like these brilliant men here:

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh ... wait ...

Did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? ( Go figure! :)

Max, this tired, constantly recycled pap was answered by Ovy118 more than a week ago. i will copy place his reply here to save you the effort of finding it.


Actually it doesn't say that. It says, "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view." 
I performed a word search. The word "abjure" does not appear, and I doubt that the scientists would swear an oath on the subject. Also note that the poll was conducted within a select group of scientists, is several years old, and the Pew Charitable Trust is anything but neutral of the subject of religion. One thing they left unanswered - and I think it is important - is how do these scientists define God. I find that a large number of people redefine "god" as a means of getting around using the words agnostic or atheist. My favorite is, "Well, if you define god as the total of all the natural laws that govern the universe, then I believe in god."

Surely you remember this, Max... you fled from it quickly enough.



Read the article, lol. Then you'll see why I couldn't possible be bothered with his drivel. I value my time you know :)

Actually, Max, then as now, you fled. Then you had the temerity to come sneaking back and re-post it here.

He is busy trying to post in a new thread and cannot be bothered answering any of the simple questions.

Exactly. I did not say that all scientists were atheists. I didn't even mention scientists. I mentioned science. People who are enlightened by it are more likely to not believe in God, but some still do.
Also, quite a few of the people you mentioned were alive long ago when the general sentiment was still religious and there was yet to be some of the breakthroughs we have now. Especially Francis Bacon.

Been there, done that. Maxx will always reply with something that misrepresents what you said, or a leading question, or a false dilemma, most of the time with pompous Latin jargon, and never acknowledge what you took a lot of time to explain. Very frustrating...

14 More Responses

Max indicated he wished to discuss the Phylogeny of life, to which end he offered me:
In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote:
“Life appears to have had ** many origins **. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
This split quote (note the disconnect in the middle of the quote), is taken from Professor Gordon’s essay “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay”. This essay discussed the history of single-celled organisms, and did so without firm evidence (which is why Professor Gordon used the word ‘speculative in the title). Let me repeat that: speculative and without firm evidence.
This is a reputable (indeed, admirable) scientist being so gracious as to ruminate publicly on a small part of his field’s subject matter (incidentally, his interest here is cladistic rather than phylogenetic). It is disgraceful that his musing has been distorted and misused. Disgraceful!
Despite this, Professor Gordon remains tolerant, and wrote:
“The quotations you cite may not be exactly verbatim, but they are close enough. They are, however, quoted out of context. Whoever wrote the tract is likely not a scientist and may not have a clear understanding of scientific method or principles. The creationist and ID views of evolution are religious and theological, not scientific. I do not agree with them.
Malcolm Gordon”

How dare you misuse another's intellectual work, Max! How dare you!
It is noon, and I will now enjoy an early lunch (I may even soothe myself with a chocolate muffin), and at some stage this afternoon I will address your offering on the Cambrian period… if I can be bothered spending time on such vacuousness.

What misuse? Dr. Gordon is correct when explaining that the tree of life (phylogeny) may have various “roots” and not a single starting point.

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin's theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: "The Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms-maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type

Source : Archaeology, "The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual," by Suzan Mazur. October 11. 2008 - Interview on

"I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification." - Henry Gee

Max, do you seriously think that today’s scientists are still working with some pristine version of what Darwin wrote more than 150 years ago? Darwin developed his work from a limited (by today’s standards) range of fossils and with no knowledge of genetics. Given those limitations of the base of knowledge with which he worked, his achievements are truly extraordinary.
Today, we are knee-deep in fossils, and we have a comprehensive (and rapidly expanding) understanding of genetics. We know that gene flow, genetic drift, and recombination can contribute to biological change… obviously, you didn’t get the memo about that…. but so what? Evolution is probably not restricted to natural selection. Big deal! This does not make Darwin wrong in any way, it does not remove the primacy of natural selection, and it does nothing to evolution except strengthen our confidence in it.
Have you spoken with Dr. Newman about how you are representing his words? i would be interested to see his response... so much so that i have just now sent him an e-mail and asked for his comments, which, if he assents, i will share with you in their entirety should he be so kind as to respond.

As many, many reputed scientists in many, many different fields have confirmed through evidence (and I keep showing you deary), gradualism is a canard. That you conveniently gloss over this fact doesn't change it or make it go away.

Without gradualism evolution is as viable as a flying invisible pink unicorn ... without a brain.

Although I imagine you could always try to bring back Lamarckism, Telegony. Alchemy or Emication. After all, many unbiased scientists are working so very hard to resurrect the dead, and inane, theory of Spontaneous Generation (reincarnated as Abiogenesis).

As far as any supposed genetic evidence that purportedly shows common descent, drawing dogmatic conclusions based on just 0.0025% of all available genetic evidence is a grossly fallacious Dicto Simpliciter. It's poor reasoning like this which led sooooo many scientists in the past to arrogantly proclaim canards as truth.

Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

Just another case of the blind leading the blind ...

Well your attempt to lead the blind, being blind. Partially right.

Oh gosh, we haven't had a copy-paste recycling of this since 8 March... are you on a 10 week cycle, Max?
Mind you, extracts have shown up periodically during that interval... filler, i suppose

Of course, that does explain the disconnect between my post and your reply... the constraints of scheduling, i take it?


Argumentum ad lapidem. Your argument's been gutted for, without gradualism macroevolution, is a pipe dream.

Max, i’ve noticed that your claims to have overturned gradualism (still no letter from the Nobel Committee?) often centre around the incomplete fossil record.
Last week i dealt with your misapprehension about this, but on the assumption that you did not read it, I will repeat salient parts of my earlier comment:
...fossilisation is staggeringly rare. What you are asking for ... is something that we would not (repeat: not) expect to happen given the physical realities of our planet. In fact, a complete and unbroken record would be indicative of a hoax!
What we do see, from older strata towards more recent strata, is a steady change towards 'modern' forms. What we never see is a 'modern' rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. 
...If a bloodhound follows your scent for 5 kilometres and finally tracks you down to where you are, that hound has not detected your scent on every millimetre of ground over which it followed you, but it still finds you... and it would be just as effective if it started from where you are and followed the scent back to where you were. You could try telling the judge that the bloodhound did not find your scent on every millimetre of the five kilometres, and that not every available scent molecule entered the dog's nose... you could try.
On 5 March and again last week: “The fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years…"
No, it’s not supposed to show that.
From last week: "...we should have millions upon millions of examples of chimerical plants and animals. The fact that these are notably lacking is clear evidence that gradualism - and macroevolution by extension - are canards."
No, we shouldn’t have those examples, and no, it isn’t any sort of evidence.

Steady change, you say?

“Instead of finding the gradual [steady] unfolding of life,” say evolutionary paleontologists like David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual [steady] change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)"

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after [chimerical]. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and ** no transitional forms ** were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” (The Guardian Weekly)

Steady change as in today's rabbits are not found before their ancestors. Not ever. Not now and again. Not even once.
Not steady as in consistent and uniform measurements of time between events... expecting such a nonsense is often the cousin of the assumption that evolution is teleological. You seem to have been making the first mistake, Max, but i maintain hope that you have not been making the second mistake.
Your quotes (recycled from last week, although i note that you wisely omitted Loren Eisley and Henry Gee from this version), consist of:
1. something Davis Raup said in 1979 (Gosh, has it really been 34 years!?)
2. a snippet from a pop-science book
3. a cutting from a newspaper somewhere


I. I'm gonna need more evidence that "rabbits are not found before their ancestors" other than your "because I said so."

II. It's been 34 years since Gradualism has been debunked and you're still preaching Gradualism? What gives?

That's it? i spend the time to address your questions and all you have to say is;
(i) you're too lazy to do your own research
(ii) a 34-year-old remark (which, if you read it in light of what i wrote, gives you no comfort, Max) totally dissipates the tidal surge of evidence available to you were it not for (i)


(1) If you don't know, it's ok, to admit you don't know. Nothing wrong with that at all :)

(2) No need to be so dramatic. The most convincing evidence for macroevolution could have been the vast fossil record but it proves the theory of Gradualism is false. Everything else is just noise.

That i don't know what, max? What evidence you're going to need, or whether or not something has never happened? Sound ridiculous? Sound the same way to me, too.
So, another statement that the fossil record falsifies 'Gradualism'. In what way this time, Max?

I kindly refer you to my previous rejoinders for your answers.

Another non-answer. Stick a fork in it. We are done.

Max - All we ever get are your previous rejoinders

Actually, it's worst than you describe 7 for these reject any and all evidence for God's existence and, to make matters worse, they cling to a belief for which they have no evidence.

In this way they're mindset is no different than the radical Islamists' or any other fanatic.

Lack of evidence does that to an argument. You are right 7, since you will not open your eyes, we are always at an impasse. Max will continue to regurgitate from the watchtower or whatever suits his fancy, proving nothing, and providing a lot of diarrhea to sift through in the process about his flavor of religion. Funny how he brings up another 'abrahamic' religion and ridicules it, as if Athiests are now Islamic in his pitiful theory, despite the fact that they have the same unprovable hurdle to overcome.

No kidding.


The fact that certain glazed jelly doughnut filled ones don't even possess a basic grasp of language comprehension doesn't help either :)

"belief for which they have no evidence"... speaking of that sort of thing, Max, you were about to debunk, gut, and generally destroy 'gradualism', weren't you?
Or are we to be left with a request to read whatever you've copy-pasted in the past?


I kindly invite you to review my previous rejoinders and present evidence which rebuts the results of the research and discoveries I've shared debunking Gradualism.

I am sure in your mind jelly donuts are linked with gradualism or something but there is no connection. QED you fail again max. With all these failures, shouldn't you quit while you are way behind? You are showing your true colors max as a fanatical idiot with no life.

The problem for you seems to be, Max, that:
(i) that's exactly what i was about
(ii) you didn't offer any


ROFLOL!! Too funny!! :D :D :D

That was funny. Stupid and moronic, but funny.

So, Max, back to how you're (once again) claiming to have debunked gradualism. The last time you claimed this, you came up with nothing. Surely you're not just pretending that your sorry hoax never happened?
As others have pointed out to you , Max, constant repetition of an untruth leaves you with... an untruth (no matter how often you scrunch up your eyes and make a wish, or tap the heels of your shoes together).


You give me too much credit. As I've already shared, Raup, Jones, Eldridge and many, many other scientists from a host of different fields debunked Gradualism a long, long time ago.

Well, failed to debunk it is the real answer. Denial is not really a good summation.


You’re still a spineless degenerate who gets his jollies violently battering women. You have no morals and yet you want to judge the morals of others? You should be locked up, you pig.

Yes, Max, i give you too much credit. i've already dealt with the quotes you mentioned as part of your vague mumble about nothing much. If you wish to be taken in any way seriously, it really is time for you to offer some actual evidence for your sweeping claims about gradualism.


I. You avoided them, you didn't deal with them. That seems to be your modus operandi when dealing with uncomfortable truths. Why is that?

II. What makes your comment even more droll is the fact that most scientists are theists, not atheist. This being the case, maybe you should spend some time investigating what it is they've figured out that you haven't.

Another non-answer. So much for proof of his claims.

I. Two untruths (and the usual attempt to beg the question)
II. like any Maxism, this has nothing to do with the topic to hand, appears for no particular reason, sits there like a vagrant (no visible means of support)... and then you try to sound like there's some deep meaning to your decoy.
Max, you have made claims that gradualism has been debunked.
You have been asked for evidence.
You have offered none.
Your audience is drifting away, Max, muttering about charlatans and snake-oil merchants.


Asked and answered yesterday. Feel free to go back and fully assimilate the scientific research I've referenced ... or not :)


Oh, as far as my audience is concerned, you guys have helped me grow it faster than I could have ever imagined doing it on my own. Thanks!


Oh, you referenced scientific research? i must have missed that bit... and to what end did you reference it, Max? Point me at it (or just copy-paste it... i know how much you like doing that).
Don't you mean 'asked and evaded', Max Or 'asked and ignored'?

I never saw any scientific research from max. He did claimed there to be some but none ever came forth.


Remember Raup, Jones, Eldridge and the others I've referred you to? I kindly invite you to assimilate the scientific research they've done debunking Gradualism.

So this is published scientific research, Max? i have a reasonable familiarity with the research literature, yet i cannot recall anything like that... how mysterious! How confusing that such evidence would certainly merit a Nobel Prize, and yet one would think that, well, that it didn't exist!
Still, i assume you'll have no problem referencing this work. Just point me at the references, Max... i have access to a large body of scientific journals and proceedings


Do your own homework :)

Max is a complete write off janine.

The problem for you, Max, and the reason for your goldfish imitation, is that i did do my homework.


Then, surprise, surprise, you've succumbed to ignorantia invincibilis.

What else would you call clinging fanatically to a false belief discredited decades ago? Do you believe the Earth is flat and that it revolves around the sun too? :)

Now that's risible, lol! :D

And to enhance the goldfish imitation... round and round in circles.

A good summation of religion:

"What else would you call clinging fanatically to a false belief discredited decades ago? Do you believe the Earth is flat and that it revolves around the sun too? :) "

Fantastic. Thanks max, the first thing you have said (backwards however) that made sense in all the time I have known of you.

46 More Responses

One major flaw in your origional post here, as regards this, is your total lie, that the bible is an unchanged document. You do realise that the book you read, called the bible, does not say that which you believe it says?: I am engaged to a man, who is a theologian. I can't particularly remember the vastly mind boring details of every word within the book, but I do recall that there are so many descrepancies between differnt versions, even if you are reading the actual* bibles (the latin and greek language versions, not the bastardised 'English versions), as to make the meaning, of many sentances, and indeed, therefore verses and 'books', entirely differnt, depending on which version you are reading. There is, (one I do recall), for example, a huge variation in the way in which the first sentence of the first paragraph of the book of Genisis can be read, translated, or interpurited. With such a huge 'chinese whisper' effect, down the years (I have not even mentioned all the obvious mistakes in transcription which are known of, and which still get repeated in various moden days versions of the books in English), how much of these badly translated, poorly trnscribed, often much 'filled in', sometimes abscent, writings can we trust? They are just words.

And in many cases, not very good ones.


Were you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts - in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine - available today in museums the world over? In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible's. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it's unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts. As such, any fears of tampering or errata are unwarranted.

As far as the genuine Bible canon is concerned, the "Protestant" canon agrees more with the very first Bible, The Tanakh, than with the Catholic and Orthodox canons. This is significant because The Tanakh is decidedly older than the Catholic and Orthodox canons making these illegitimate adulterations of the Bible.

...and the Koran, just had a different editor, as did the Torah, etc. It was just what they chose in 325 CE to include. Then the translations, mistranslations, next thing you know we have to include other religious stories like virgin birthing from Mithra, and various Sumerian writings about a 'noah' etc etc and whatever we need to include to pacify the masses at that time.Religion is a tool designed to control the ignorant. Doing a good job on max.

Yes, the ignorant such as these unbelievable ignorant men -

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? ( Go figure! :)

No Max, we didn't know that, because the last time you offered this recycled claim, Ovy118 pointed out to you (6 days ago) that it's incorrect (and i'm being kind in that describing it as such). Nevertheless, here it is again... your willingness to waste people's time is quite astonishing!


Was I addressing you?

I realize you are outwitted by a chair max but janine is being kind to you.

Assuming two options, and having to guess, i'm going to go with 'yes, you were addressing me'


No, I wasn't addressing you but Eusarian.

Had I been addressing you I would have included your name in my rejoinder.

Next time, wait your turn.

You are quite pompous maxxy. My my my.

7 More Responses

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -Steve Eley

"Atheism leaves a man to his sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to repudiation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue...but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." -Sir Francis Bacon

"The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty." -Mikhail Bakunin

"There's no way to prove that there is no God. You just have to take it on faith." -Woody Allen

"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." -Stendhal (1783-1842)

"If you tell a child 'God made the world' he will usually ask 'Then who made God?' If we reply, as the catechism states, 'No one made God. He always was,' then why couldn't we just say that about the world in the first place." -Marian Noel Sherman (1892-1975)

"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1931)

"When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me." -Emo Phillips

“Science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years.” -John Burroughs

“The very concept of sin comes from the Bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?” -Dan Barker

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” -John Adams

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins


“If your right eye offends you, pluck it out. If your right arm offends you, cut it off. And if reason offends you, become a Catholic”-Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), German-Jewish Poet

“[Religion is] an attempt to find an out where there is no door.” -Albert Einstein

“If there was a God, I’d still have both nuts.” -Lance Armstrong