Intelligent people fighting for their beliefs...

You are my evidence, dear Latrivia. You just did not pop out of some bubble, did you? Believing is a blessing. Pray for it. God grants to those who pray. Till then, I rest my case.

No, but my existence isn't evidence for anything other than my existence. Especially since there are scientific means of explaining how you and I got here.

I assume, a dangerous thing to do - I know, that you mean the scientific explanations revolving around random chance and evolution.

One favor then, if you will indulge me for only a moment...

Please explain the origin of matter, the stuff that it all began from. How can you get around the problem of infinite regression?

Good Bless

Hi FundamentalCharlie. I will ask my daughter about the origin of matter. She's a Biology student. I do not know what is infinite regression. Could you explain further?

"Please explain the origin of matter, the stuff that it all began from. How can you get around the problem of infinite regression?"

According to current theory, matter came to be after the formation of protons and electrons, that underwent nucleosynthesis and formed basic particles. Matter is composed of energy, condensed into varying forms and weights to form their respective types.

As for infinite regression, that's a double edged sword that many religious folks fail to recognize. The way I've seen the argument used is that you keep asking questions until you get to how the big bang occured, what caused it, or what came before it, and if the other party has no answer, then presto - the creationist wins.

This argument has two fatal flaws:
Flaw 1.) Even if the big bang never happened, it would be incorrect to assume that it automatically proves the creationist model correct. There could be infinite possibilities still available, some of which we might not have even entertained yet.

Furthermore (and this is just my personal opinion on the matter), since so many are willing to stop at "God just is" when infinite regression is used against them, I've come to the conclusion that if they can accept an end to infinite regression, there's no sense in regarding the argument as valid. If you (creationists in general) accept the argument of infinite regression as a valid one, then it must also be valid when it comes to your beliefs as well. To not do so just sort of invalidates the whole argument, in my opinion.

Flaw 2.)Not know how something happened, or what caused it, does not necessarily mean it never happened. It just means we have more to learn about the event.

"You are my evidence, dear Latrivia."

What is your explanation of why people reject that which is the case, if/since people are interested in knowing the truth? If human beings are indeed the evidence for a Supreme Being, then why don't they accept the existence of the Supreme Being as a fact?

Humans are humans. One reason could be the degree of intelligences are not the same. Another reason could be some are just too obstinate to accept.

There are people who traverse life's journey without ever noticing the signposts nor recognizing the clues to the meaning of life. Proof is a word often invoked by those who choose to believe otherwise. It is easy to be philosophical and argue and say what proof have you that there is a God. But at the end of the day, what proof had anyone that agnosticism is fault free. One has got to have a contention, to be called a man. Otherwise, we could be classified to the level of the beasts. Am afraid they wouldn't want us.

A-theism is not a belief, but a lack thereof. In the same way that ag-nosticism is "without knowing", a-theism is "without God(s)". Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not categorically irrevocable. Instead, one can be an agnostic atheist. Basically, "without God because without knowledge" (i.e. has not been shown proof, but is not closed to the possibility).

Well said, SomethingSea.

Here is what I would like theists of all kinds to understand: I have examined religions, gods and dogmas of all sorts. I have examined science, critical thinking, and rational thought. I was raised Christian, but as I reached adulthood, have discarded the religion and theistic belief imposed upon me as a child. This is the beauty of being an individual. I think for myself. I believe based on scientific criteria and evidence that there is no god. Is that 100% certain? No. Valid scientific theory can adjust when error or new information is found. So that if valid evidence of god's existence in some form is found, I (we) will examine it and evaluate it fairly and rationally as we have all other. Science is not and will never be religion. Religion requires faith, science requires fact and evidence.

Hi SomethingSea, the lengthy heated discussions were under Christian. Thank you for the correction there. I really meant regardless. Sorry! Still I couldn't argue anymore about there being a God. When I look at people's faces, rich or poor, when I look at the majestic mountains and the vast blue skies, when I look at the canopies of trees, and the birds, the butterflies, and the bees that come visit my garden full of flowers, I can't help but say thank you to the Almighty Who had blessed the world with so much. As to the abusive parents, there are really many bad people in the world. They chose to be bad. To me, God is so good. I do have my share of problems. Many of those problems made me cry. Yet, at the end of the day, I count my blessings and say thanks to the Great God Who made and loved me. I am not rich but I am happy with what I have. I continue to pray for the abused children, as I also pray for the children of the slums who eat roots for a day's meal.

Hi lizprice! To me, God has given us a free will to decide on our own. That is what makes us different from other living creatures. Wasn't it Sir Isaac Newton, the scientist who gave us the three laws of motion, was the same scientist whose affinity to God was evidenced by his voracious readings and study of the Holy Book? It is from the mouths of scientists and astronomers that I heard on discovery channel how they yield to one Being above who made the intricate formation of the corals under the sea exactly the same as the galaxies millions of lightyears from our planet earth. Many learned men since probably the time of Confucius had studied God and man's existence. Many great men had contended that where science ends, religion begins. The men of science had given us their generalizations. They are learned men. Why should I argue with them?