Why Atheism is Untrue

by

Following on my previous post about why Atheism is morally wrong, I’m going to show you why Atheism cannot be true.

First, what is Atheism?

Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

What is a god?

I suppose if you take a narrow definition of god, something that can be trivially disproven, then you should feel safe in calling yourself Atheist. But you must realize, that for different definitions of god, you are no longer Atheist! At best, you can claim Agnosticism — you do not know, you cannot know. I would hope these people who wallow in ignorance adopt the title “Ignoramus”, but “Agnostic” is certainly a good middle ground. If you are this sort of Atheist, please don’t use that title anymore since it is simply not correct.

Gods can be a tricky thing to define. I guess you could define a god as anything and everything. Ancient people saw gods in death, life, the sun, lightning, and even the trees and wind. If everything is a god, then Atheism is the belief that nothing exists. Obviously, we have to limit our definition of god.

What about defining god as anything people believe to be a god? As long as we eliminate those beliefs which make everything a god, and focus primarily on those gods which have a significant following, then we can limit the possibilities to a finite set of things. So now our definition of Atheism is:

Atheism is the belief that no god of any kind that a large number people believe in exists, excluding those who believe everything is a god.

If you go this route, then you have to take the time to study and learn about the religions people believe in, and not just superficially, but deeply. Once you have come to a very good understanding of what they consider god, then you can go out and attempt to disprove such a thing exists.

Suppose that there is some definition of “god”. How would you go about proving that such a thing doesn’t exist? This is the same problem cryptozoologists have in proving that a legendary animal does not exist. That is, you have to examine every possible location of any instance of the animal at a single point in time. Then, and only then, can you say with certainty that such a creature does not exist.

With gods, who typically have the attributes of existing beyond nature, and have attributes that make them more intelligent and more capable than us, such a process is simply impossible.

You’ll note how much time and treasure was spent trying to find the Higg’s Boson. Bit by bit, physicists could declare where it did not exist, and what properties it did not have. But until they have exhaustively searched every possible hiding place for the particle, they could not declare that it did not exist. Indeed, many physicists grew to believe that the Higg’s Boson was unlikely to exist, because the evidence began to suggest that. However, all it took was on possible sighting to change their minds.

The Higg’s Boson is a much easier thing to find than many of the gods people believe in.

Multiply by the numerous gods in our limited set, by the difficulty of disproving even one of them, and you have created an impossible task.

As such, with this definition, at best Atheists can only claim to believe what they claim, with no certainty whatsoever that their belief is true, and a good chance that they are wrong.

Since Atheists cannot prove that there is no God, what could possibly be the foundation of their certainty? After all, not many Atheists trumpet their doctrine as a belief, but a sure knowledge.

Perhaps we need a different definition for Atheism altogether.

Atheism is the belief that phenomena in nature can be explained without action by any kind of god people believe in.

This is a different kind of mindset than simply “there is no god.” I imagine true-blue believers in Atheism, the sort that are capable of following logical arguments like the one I am making now, begin with the assumption, the belief, that the universe is ordered, along with the other assumptions that lead to modern science, (IE, that the order is logically consistent, that you can observe nature and deduce the order, etc…) This, they say, is enough, and we need no God to explain phenomena in the world around us.

The problem is, they have not begun their reasoning from nothing. Why is the belief, the religion, that the universe is ordered and so on, valid? No one can explain this logically, since is it beyond logical. That is, if you use logic, you are already assuming the conclusion. No such argument could be constructed to explain logically why the universe is logical. We can only believe that it is.

Certainly, God may exist between nothingness and the ordered universe, be the driving cause for order in the universe, the only possible explanation that bridges illogically to logic. How can an Atheist of the sort I just described prove this to not be the case? They simply can’t.

In short, Atheism is at best a belief, and has no certainty whatsoever, and no way of creating certainty of the validity of their beliefs. What a horrible system! A set of assumptions that are never provable! Surely, we must have knowledge as our philosophical foundation, not suppositions!

All of what I have said is enough to destroy anyone’s certainty in Atheism. What I mention now is counter-factual evidence, that is, proof that Atheism’s beliefs simply are not so.

It’s rather simple, actually. All I have to do is demonstrate God.

And here is my counter-factual evidence: I know that God lives. He is real, he talks to people on earth, and he is the same today, yesterday, and forever. His mind is above ours, he comprehends things we cannot conceive of. If my knowledge is real, that is, if things are really the way I say they are, then Atheism is untrue.

How do I “know” the thing to be true? How do we “know” anything? By our observations through our senses. I have felt God the same way I can see a mountain or a microbe, or hear the waves of the ocean or a bell, or touch a kitten, or sense how hot a frying pan is with my hand. To me, the sensation I have felt when God showed himself to me in my life is no different than the above sense. In fact, I have come to learn to trust in this feeling more than my other five senses. Call it the “sixth sense”, I call it the influence of the Holy Ghost. This sense has never lead me astray.

The fact that you can’t see very well doesn’t mean I cannot see; likewise, the fact that your “sixth sense” is dull does not change the fact that my “sixth sense” is very real.

The fact that you have not “felt” God doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It simply means you have not felt God. It is the same as if you haven’t been to Paris to see the sights and smell the smells. Because you have not done so does not mean that Paris doesn’t exist. It only means that you haven’t felt Paris. To try and convince someone who has been to Paris that Paris doesn’t exist is simply absurd.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you the same knowledge I have unless you experience it yourself. I can only witness what I have felt. The way, the only way, to experience this is to sincerely pray to the true God and allow himself to manifest himself to you. I suggest finding LDS missionaries, inviting them into your home, and doing everything they ask you to do for an absolute witness.

Maybe I am a liar; maybe I don’t really have a sixth sense but am suffering under some kind of psychotic delusion; This kind of reasoning is just as easily used to confuse eye-witnesses of a crime.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the claim that something outlandish is automatically not true until observed to be so. This is absurd reasoning. You might choose not to believe in the outlandish claim, but you must realize that your belief may very well be wrong. Take, for instance, Einstein’s belief that “God does not play dice.” He refused to accept the outlandish claim that events around us are truly born of randomness. And yet, we know that things are that way. It has always been true, even before we conceived of it, and even before we generally accepted it and still considered it outlandish.

There are a lot of things that are true that are inconceivable or outlandish, and you don’t have to go far to find it. When someone comes with a reliable witness that something outlandish is true, go ahead and refuse to believe it at first, but promise yourself to investigate the claims thoroughly if the matter is important to you. I would think that matters about your eternal fate would be important to you, so you shouldn’t wait long before seriously investigating religious claims.

I will accept all logical arguments. All ad hominem or other logical fallacies will simply be ignored or torn to pieces, given my mood. If there is a particular argument you like in favor of Atheism, I’ll show you how I already incorporated it above.

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Why Atheism is Untrue”

  1. Tensor Says:

    “Atheism is the belief that there is no god.”

    No, [t]heism is the belief in the existence of one (or more) god(s); atheism is the lack of such belief.

    Chapter Four of “The God Delusion” carries the title, “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God.” The author, Dr. Richard Dawkins, examines various arguments for the existence of a god, mostly related to his own field of biology, and describes why they are not valid. However, he allows for the possibilty of his own errors, and his understanding that his knowledge of our universe is very limited. Therefore, he does not subscribe to the definition of atheism you gave here; he does subscribe to the one I gave.

    When the views of *Richard Dawkins* do not fit a definition of atheism, that definition is very, very wrong indeed! Since the entire post rests on this faulty foundation, it suffers the same fate.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Uh huh.

      OK, let me follow the logic here.

      “Atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence of one or more gods.”

      I said, “Atheism is the belief that there is no god.”

      I am having a really hard time telling the difference between the two.

      Let me try and make sense by a simple mathematical exercise. If a rule yields the exact same result given every similar input as another rule, then the two rules are the same. I mean, it’s a matter of what words to use, but ultimately, they are the same thing. For instance, if I said, “Add 3” and “add 1, then another 1, then another 1.”, you would have to admit that those two things are exactly the same because they have the exact same meaning.

      So let’s try it out. Let’s suppose there are people who believe in A, and people who do not believe in A, where A is “the existence of one or more gods.” Let’s suppose there are people who believe in B and people who do not believe in B, where B is “there is no god.” Let’s compare the beliefs these people have.

      Is it possible for a person to believe, simultaneously, A and B? Of course not. Those two statements are directly contradictory. (Or do you disagree that they are? Let me know.)

      What about this: If a person believes in A, does that automatically mean the same person must therefore not believe in B? I think this is reasonable. Or do you disagree?

      Let’s reverse it: If a person believes in B, does that automatically mean the same person must not believe in A? Again, that is reasonable.

      Let’s reverse it a different way. If a person does not believe in A, does that imply they believe in B? I think so.

      And the double-reverse: If a person does not believe in B, does that imply they believe in A? I can’t think of a reason why not.

      I think I’ve proven that believing in A and not believing in B are the same thing.

      Therefore, you argument boils down to this: You said, point blank, that my statement “Atheism is the belief that there is no god” is wrong, and that the statement “atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence of one or more gods” is correct. You’ve made a terrible logical mistake here by doing so.

      Nevertheless, you then try to provide weight for your argument, not by explaining why you think these two obviously contradictory things are not contradictory at all, but by argumentum ad authoritarian. You even went so far as to explain why your authority is authoritative, using the completely unreasonable explanation tht he is a doctor of biology. What does biology have to do with theology and philosophy and simple logic? I don’t know. Perhaps you can expound.

      You finally tried to discredit my post, not by attacking its arguments, but by asserting that I made only one statement of what atheism is. I did not. I made several statements of what I thought atheism could be defined as, of which one was the one you cited above.

      Now I am left to wonder: Why is it that atheists such as yourself consider you to be superior at logical reasoning, when you are so completely devoid of it? Your one pathetic attempt at logic was a horrible contradiction; your second attempt a poor argumentum ad authoritarian; and your final, a simple strawman argument.

      Now that I have ripped your logic to shreds, do you dare continue with the proper topic at hand, or are you going to resort to more logical fallacies in a feeble effort to defend atheism?

  2. Tensor Says:

    “If a rule yields the exact same result given every similar input as another rule, then the two rules are the same.”

    No, they are functionally equivalent, not “the same”. in your example, the first rule has one step, and the second rule has three steps. Since one does not equal three (!), an entity with one part is not “the same” as an entity with three parts, even if they are functionally equivalent. This is a matter of logic, not semantics.

    In logic, a claim of the form “I believe X exists” is a positive statement, requiring the claimant to demonstrate it, i.e. provide a definition and evidence in favor of it. This remains necessary, whether “X” is “no god,” “one god,” “the Higgs Boson,” or “a peanut-butter sandwich.” A statement of the form, “I do not believe X exists,” is not a positive statement, and therefore does not require any support. Since a statement of the latter type would not be made unless in response to a statement of the positive type, the entire burden of defining and justifying “X” remains upon the person who made the original, positive claim.

    Now, since “I believe no god exists” is functionally equivalent to “I don’t believe a god exists,” the same positive statement, “a god exists”, would invalidate both, assuming such a statement ever was itself validated. (The burden of proof here rests entirely upon the theistic claimant, of course.)

    You even went so far as to explain why your authority is authoritative, using the completely unreasonable explanation tht he is a doctor of biology.

    No, please read it again. My argument has nothing to do with his authority as a biologist; that was a descriptive detail concerning the chapter titled, “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God”, in his book, “The God Delusion.” My argument was, and is, that by wrongly equating two different statements, you have created a definition of “atheism” which does not include the views clearly stated in, “The God Delusion.” If the author of a book titled, “The God Delusion” does not qualify as an atheist, then that definition of atheism must be faulty indeed! This has nothing to do with biology.

    Also, I stand corrected: there are many other errors in your post, not merely the one I just described. I’ll try to address some of your other errors, if I have the time.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      In logic, two statements are equivalent if they are both true or both false. Is there really an argument here?

      I think you agreed with my reasoning behind “I do not believe any gods exist” meaning the same as “I believe that no gods exist.” Is there an argument here?

      I’m curious where you get the idea that someone has to provide proof of only some of their statements. Perhaps if you could describe why someone has to justify their beliefs to you, we can get to the heart of the matter. I believe all statements must be demonstrated.

      Did you say that you only have to prove positive statements? Very well, “I believe one or more gods exist” is equivalent to “I do not believe that no god exists”. Using your logic, I just proved that atheism is wrong. Surely this is not what you meant to be the standard of evidence. It is trivial to restate any positive statement as a negative.

      I would not be surprised if Dawkin’s definition of Atheism is flawed. The obvious definition, “Atheists believe no god exists” is impossible to demonstrate (as I showed above), and yet he seems so sure of his belief, almost as if it were a universal fact that is proven by science, of all things.

      I think it would be best to either supply a good definition of an Atheist, or simply abandon the title and claim to be agnostic.

      Please, demonstrate where my reasoning is wrong. I am not afraid of truth.

  3. tensor Says:

    I think you agreed with my reasoning behind “I do not believe any gods exist” meaning the same as “I believe that no gods exist.”

    You need to re-read my entire last comment, since you obviously did not understand any of it. The second statement is incredibly unscientific; it claims we could search the entire universe and not find a god; given how little of the universe we know, that is a very big claim to base on very little evidence. The first statement comports with all known evidence, yet leaves open the possibility we might someday encounter a god, and is therefore a good scientific statement.

    I’m curious where you get the idea that someone has to provide proof of only some of their statements.

    Then you need to take a basic course in logical reasoning, paying attention to the idea that a negative claim cannot be proven, which tried to explain it to you in my previous comment. In any case, since I’m not making the statement, “I believe no god exists,” I don’t have to defend it. That you wrongly equate it to my actual statement, “I do not believe that a god exists,” is not my problem.

    Using your logic, I just proved that atheism is wrong.

    No, you just used a double-negative statement, which logically is a positive statement, and claimed it was a negative claim. I mean, you do understand that (-1) times (-1) is +1, right? (And that even though 1 times 1 is also 1, it does not follow that -1 = 1, right?)

    I would not be surprised if Dawkin’s definition of Atheism is flawed.

    Your definition of atheism does not include the views of Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” or the views of Sam Harris, author of “The End of Faith,” nor does it include my views, so it does not concern me.

    The obvious definition, “Atheists believe no god exists” is impossible to demonstrate (as I showed above), and yet he seems so sure of his belief, almost as if it were a universal fact that is proven by science, of all things.

    Again and again and again, you take your wrong definition of atheism, wrongly claim that other people subscribe to it, and then castigate them for being wrong! Please quote a statement from Richard Dawkins, where he claims to believe no god exists. He wrote an entire book called “The God Delusion,” so you have a lot of material from which to choose. You might want to pay additional attention to the end of the third chapter, where he states flatly that the existence of a god cannot be disproven by science or logic.

    I am not afraid of truth.

    Oh yes you are:

    My understanding of the Creation of the earth isn’t something that’s testable anyway, and I don’t care to see it put to the test.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Shall I be charitable and then call Atheism the belief that if gods exist, they have not manifested themselves? Isn’t that actually a better description of Agnosticism?

      If you leave the door open that gods may exist, then you are not an Atheist. If there was such a possibility, you would not spend your time offending such gods, but instead, understanding which gods actually existed and which did not, and in what way living your life will give you the best advantage.

      Considering the question of which statements must be proven and which need only be asserted as enough proof, I think you missed my point. My position is that all statements must be verified, and that simple logical reasoning isn’t enough to verify whether the universe conforms to a statement. (I am an experimental physicist more than a theoretical one in that regard.)

      Your position is that if you can state something in the form of “I don’t believe X”, X needs not be proven and can be assumed to be true. Correct? Or perhaps you mean X may or may not be true, but you don’t know either way. Please clarify.

      What is the definition of Atheism? I have been begging for this since the beginning. Why do you not provide a definition you are comfortable with? Is it perhaps that you know, full well, that any definition of Atheism will expose Atheism as a fundamentally flawed system of (non-)beliefs?

      I assert again: I am not afraid of the truth. How can you test what happened in the past? You need witnesses who saw what happened and who are reliable. You can’t test what happened in a lab, only whether the witnesses are reliable; I don’t want to waste time trying to test what happened in a lab because of this. No matter what test you perform, it says nothing except what could have happened, one possibility among many. When a reliable witness steps forward and testifies, the tests performed become meaningless. Does that help you understand what I meant?

  4. tensor Says:

    Isn’t that actually a better description of Agnosticism?

    In “The God Delusion,” Dawkins spends chapter two on this question, and he agrees that, technically speaking, “agnostic” is a better term, but he does not want to use it because it can carry the implication the person simply hasn’t decided. As he puts it, he is agnostic about the existence of a god in the same was as he is “agnostic about the existence of faeries in the bottom of my garden.” (With a metaphor like that, he removes all agnosticism about whether or not he is English!)

    The problem with defining atheism in the way you have here is that the statement “I believe that N god(s) exist,” is a statement of faith, no matter what numerical value the claimant assigns to N. Dawkins then nicely describes the problem with using N=0 to define atheism:

    Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.

    My atheism, like that of Dawkins and Harris, derives from my rationality, and therefore I can make no claim of the form given above, no matter what value of N we use. The claim I do make, “I do not believe that a god exists,” simply means that as a scientist, I can’t exclude the possibility a god may exist. If you want to call me an agnostic, you may do so, but then Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are also agnostics, not atheists, and so your statements here about atheism do not apply to us. (When dealing with other persons, I will continue to call myself an atheist, because I don’t normally encounter the absolute definition you give here.)

    If there was such a possibility, you would not spend your time offending such gods, but instead, understanding which gods actually existed and which did not, and in what way living your life will give you the best advantage.

    If there was a gold medal given for the Long Jump to Conclusions, you should, by rights, hold that prize! Your Olympian leap, from “we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that a god may exist,” to “humans should worry about offending gods,” is the largest crossing of argumentative space without support that I have yet encountered. You’ve assumed a lot of things you need to prove! (As for “living my life to the best advantage,” I do that now, in part by living my life free of worry that I have offended Wodin, Zeus, Vishnu, Gaia, Jahweh, Jesus, or any other god you choose to name.)

    My position is that all statements must be verified, and that simple logical reasoning isn’t enough to verify whether the universe conforms to a statement.

    My point was that there IS no way to verify the statement, “I do not believe that a god exists.” Demonstrating the existence of a god would show it to be false, but there’s no way to show it is true. We’ve yet to encounter any physical question which requires a god to explain it, and we have no reason to believe we ever will, but that’s not the same as proving there cannot be a god.

    Is it perhaps that you know, full well, that any definition of Atheism will expose Atheism as a fundamentally flawed system of (non-)beliefs?

    Yes, the claim, “I believe no gods exist” is as impossible to validate as the claim, “I believe a god exists,” but that’s your problem, not mine. :-)

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The “gold medal” for “long jump to conclusions” you describe I made is not absurd at all.

      If there are supernatural creatures with supernatural powers that can affect my life, isn’t it in my best interests to understand which ones really exist and which ones don’t, and what laws they govern the universe with?

      That is, after all, the FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE. Let’s understand what dragons there are in reality, and what dragons there are not, and then understand them so that we can have a better life.

      I find it curioser and curioser. Here, I have successfully won the debate about how no rational person could be a strict atheist. I have won the debate on how important it is to understand what gods actually exist and which do not, and I have only but to show you, with scientific, reasonable, and logical proof, that my God exists and no others do, and then I will have made a new convert to my religion. It doesn’t matter if you are Dawkins or Hawkins or whoever, logically and systematically thinking about this will lead people to the same conclusion it lead ancient man.

      The “faith” you are so afraid of is a critical ingredient in science. Let’s say someone runs down the street, naked, shouting “Eureka!” How can we possibly hope to obtain whatever knowledge of the universe that man has obtained, if we do not first BELIEVE what he says is true? And then, believing in his message, we then need to ACT upon it. That action without knowledge, but based on belief, is faith. Now, it is important that we understand that faith in THINGS WHICH ARE TRUE will yield the predicted result, while faith in things which are not true do not, and cannot, at least not consistently

      And so, we are left with the core ingredients of any religion. First, the message. Second, the belief in that message, without any evidence. Third, action upon that belief. Finally, observation. Is this not science? Is not science and religion, ultimately, one and the same?

      No false religion or science would survive ten seconds of such rigorous, logical treatment. No true religion or science would fail such a test.

      Which is why, as a Latter-day Saint, I boldly declare, “Yes, God exists. Yes, you can know for yourself, if you approach in humble prayer.”

      Atheism is not what it is perceived to be. You have only agreed with me all along.

  5. tensor Says:

    Since I now have time, and you have repeated some of the errors in your original post, I will address them here.

    In your original post, after a long section on your evidence for the existence of a god, you admit that your evidence, which consists entirely of how you feel about certain internal experiences you have had, does not hold the same weight as external evidence. After some delightful, pre-emptive sneering at anyone who doubts your interpretation of your internal experiences, you then make another revealing admission:

    The way, the only way, to experience this is to sincerely pray to the true God and allow himself to manifest himself to you. I suggest finding LDS missionaries, inviting them into your home, and doing everything they ask you to do for an absolute witness.

    Yes, only by introducing a very strong bias into the observer — and by then reinforcing that bias the entire way — can you arrive at your desired result. Why? Because the evidence itself simply does not lead to that conclusion. There are too many other possible explanations, each surviving Okham’s Razor more easily than does the God Hypothesis. Given how little we know of the human brain, pretty much every instance of what Dawkins, in “The God Delusion”, calls “The Argument From Personal Experience” can be assigned to the ‘god of the gaps’ in our knowledge.

    Much of the rest is your imposing your own religiously-muddled thinking onto science:

    Why is the belief, the religion, that the universe is ordered and so on, valid?

    It is not a belief, it is not a religion, it is not an assumption. It is the rational conclusion, based on observations of external evidence. The movements of the stars in space, the movements of subatomic particles, all of this can be written as equations, and validated by predictions. Earlier men could be frightened by the appearance of a comet; modern men can predict such an event with confidence — and, if they did not predict it, explain rationally why they failed to do so.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the claim that something outlandish is automatically not true until observed to be so. This is absurd reasoning. You might choose not to believe in the outlandish claim, but you must realize that your belief may very well be wrong. Take, for instance, Einstein’s belief that “God does not play dice.” He refused to accept the outlandish claim that events around us are truly born of randomness.

    Although Einstein initially did not want to believe it, the overwhelming weight of the evidence convinced him. As Carl Sagan later put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and so when we hear outlandish claims, we ask for more evidence. If the evidence, when rigorously and skeptically examined, consistently supports the claims, we accept these claims, although we once found them outlandish. In this case, the evidence for randomness on the subatomic level overcame our familiarity with the predictable order on the level we normally observe with our senses.

    Likewise, in your latest comment, your claim that we need automatically believe a new discovery is belied by your own example. Archimedes, having observed the displacement of his bathwater by his body, immediately hypothesized how this principle, if correct, could help determine the relations between mass and volume. He did indeed run naked through the streets, but he did *not* ask anyone to believe him, nor did he invoke a god. Instead, he arranged a practical demonstration, an *experiment*, to test his hypothesis. Observe, hypothesize rationally, experiment (and/or) observe more closely, and then rationally conclude. Those are the tools of science. Belief in the message brought by a man, without supporting evidence, is the Argument from Authority, a logical fallacy against which Sagan explicitly warned us.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      In my terminology, “belief” is what “a rational conclusion based on observations of external evidence” is in yours. They’re the same things. One’s a native English word that conveys the same meaning in a handful of letters and syllables. The other is a smattering of Latin and Greek attempting to explain the same concept. Do not confuse using big words with being smart.

      My experiences are part of my “external evidences”. What I see with my eyes, hear with my ears, and feel with my heart and soul, are all just as real as each other. I know full well, as you do, that our senses can be confused and distorted, to get us to interpret the same experience in different ways, or even to have us experience which contradict reality. Hence, advertising and marketing and public relations and those industries, in addition to all the illusionists and magicians, the special effects artists, painters, and movie makers.

      The fundamental belief of science is and always will be that the universe is ordered and conforms to logical principles. There can be no explanation for why it is so with science. That’s circular reasoning. You’re assuming the conclusion if you try to prove that the universe is ordered and conforms to logical principles with science.

      Your point about extraordinary claims: Who is making the extraordinary claim? The one who describes what he sees, and refuses to interpret it, or the one who invents a mythology to explain things he can never know anything about?

      While you stick your foot in your mouth for claiming to be the rational one, keep in mind that I have external evidence, more extraordinary than any claim made, to prove for myself what I believe in to be conforming to reality.

      On your side, you have, at the heart of your argument, so-called proof that no supernatural being exists anywhere inside or outside the universe. Who is believing a fable now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: