believers and non believers?

Question

would you say an argument about god,is like arguing about which
came first the chicken or the egg.cause proof isnt absolute on
both sides of the argument is it.

Answer 1

Definitely. You're right, there is no proof on either side... not anything Absolute. I'm not sure why people are wasting their time with arguing about it. *shrug*

Answer 2

Your logic is flawed.

Basically you are saying that we should accept the possible existence of absolutely *anything*, because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Well where does that leave us? That means that we should accept the possible existence of Santa Clause, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, the celestial teapot and, in fact, absolutely anything that I suggest might exist that you can't prove doesn't.

OK, let's come up with a completely random word shall we? Errrrrrr? Giggeedong.

I suggest that the Giggeedong exists, and you can't prove it doesn't.

So, do you now accept the possibility that the Giggeedong exists?

I do hope not!

Thus you can't use the argument that; since I can't prove that God doesn't exist, I must accept the possibility that he does.

Incidentally, the egg came first. It was laid by something that was very nearly, but not quite, a chicken. If you don't like that idea, then consider dogs. All the breeds of dog in northern Europe were bred from the Wolf - by humans. So, which came first? The collie, or the collie puppy? Obviously, the first collie wasn't magiced out of thin air by God, it was bred gradually by human selective breeding. Eventually, a human selected a dog & ***** that were not quite collies and they produced puppies that were the collie breed we know and love today.

The same thing happened with the chicken, only the selection process was "survival of the fittest".

In fact, of course, since chickens have been domesticated for millennia, they were probably bred by humans too, but you get the point.

Answer 3

No, because proof of God can be made in many ways including logically, reasonably and with the mind and way beyond reasonable doubt, but if the heart doesn't want to accept it nothing will persuade.

Answer 4

Your statement is absolutely true.

;-)

Assertions that there is proof either for or against god are nonsensical for three reasons: (1) There is no consistent definition of what God is, so we don't even know what we're trying to prove. (2) God is assumed to be beyond our senses, so we are unable to rely on our only methods for gathering information. (3) It is arrogant and has repeatedly proven an error to assign "God" as the cause of events that occur in nature. As science gathers more knowledge, the understandable, measurable causes of events become ever more evident, thereby moving God aside in favor of natural causes. At the same time, we are not set up to determine the cause of every event that occurs.

.

Answer 5

Of course not. If you can't see how I don't know if its worth trying to enlighten you.

Does the fact that you can't disprove that there is a fire breathing dragon in my attic mean that you'd say that there was a 50/50 chance there was?

Answer 6

What created the big bang? The atoms that exploded were put there by something, they didn't just appear. The answer is simple God created it. He IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE.

Answer 7

In as much as I was not around to see how everything came into being (and neither were you),I say, "I don't know ..... YET!" To assume that some god, my less than intellectual ancestors made up, instantaneously farted the universe into being, is absurd

Answer 8

Actually you can disprove certain god(s) with logical reasoning. But you can't disprove a creator because that is what most religious people and non-believers argue about.

"How did we came about?

Answer 9

Why do you insist on talking about god? when darwins theory of evoltutionnis more to our beojng than a stupid book made up of lies lies lies aka the bible

Answer 10

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.