scientific reasons for believing in god?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I never understood what it was supposed to prove, it just always seems a circular argument. 
I personally see it as a weak argument
Original post by mangala
ok clearly you are a bit simple. lets try and get past this definition of evidence thing. give me another example of proof of god ( i assume you must have more than just one piece of evidence )
There are many proofs of God. I'm not sure what you're looking for - So if you could just prove to me that you exist as I challenged the other fellow, I will endeavor to use the same methodology you use to show God exists.
Specifically: Prove to me you exist in a way that, as you said, cannot be explained away by someone being either mad, sick or someone having an agenda to prove you exist.
When you provide that scientific proof - The proof that you exist - I will know what sort of proof you're looking for and I'll be able to use the same methodology. You're the scientist here so this should be no problem - After all, you're in the same room as yourself.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
There are many proofs of God. I'm not sure what you're looking for - So if you could just prove to me that you exist as I challenged the other fellow, I will endeavor to use the same methodology you use to show God exists.
Specifically: Prove to me you exist in a way that, as you said, cannot be explained away by someone being either mad, sick or someone having an agenda to prove you exist.
When you provide that scientific proof - The proof that you exist - I will know what sort of proof you're looking for and I'll be able to use the same methodology. You're the scientist here so this should be no problem - After all, you're in the same room as yourself.
Specifically: Prove to me you exist in a way that, as you said, cannot be explained away by someone being either mad, sick or someone having an agenda to prove you exist.
When you provide that scientific proof - The proof that you exist - I will know what sort of proof you're looking for and I'll be able to use the same methodology. You're the scientist here so this should be no problem - After all, you're in the same room as yourself.
1. you can see me
2. i leave DNA evidence
4. there are legal documents confirming my existence
5. i do not contradict any laws of physics
Original post by mangala
1. you can see me
2. i leave DNA evidence
4. there are legal documents confirming my existence
5. i do not contradict any laws of physics
2. i leave DNA evidence
4. there are legal documents confirming my existence
5. i do not contradict any laws of physics
1) You can see God.
2) The whole universe is his DNA evidence.
3) Courts of law have people swearing in on bibles, making the bible one of the largest 'legal documents' in existence.
4) Newtonian or Quantum? On a quantum level, you violate numerous laws of physics.
There! Proof God exists according to the same proofs you required - Your first point was simple 'Fiat' - I actually cannot see you, but I trust you when you say you can be seen. Other people have seen God, so... Oh, wait. That's first person evidence once more. I apologize - Point one is useless for both you and God. You haven't proven yourself and I haven't proven God with that.
Point 2 is your quote by fiat - I accept that you leave DNA evidence, but I'm again taking your word for it. I guess point 2 doesn't count for you OR God, either.
Point 3 - Again, I trusted that you have legal documents, but that's you giving me first person proofs. So you failed to prove yourself there. God, on the other hand, can be seen in everything from American currency to other legal documents.
Point 4 was actually incorrect. You violate several classical Newtonian physics on a quantum level.
So... I apologize - You failed to prove yourself while God, according to your laws, was 1/4. So technically God is more proveable than you. Hmm...
Care to try again? Maybe you can be just as real as God next time.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
1) You can see God.
2) The whole universe is his DNA evidence.
3) Courts of law have people swearing in on bibles, making the bible one of the largest 'legal documents' in existence.
4) Newtonian or Quantum? On a quantum level, you violate numerous laws of physics.
There! Proof God exists according to the same proofs you required - Your first point was simple 'Fiat' - I actually cannot see you, but I trust you when you say you can be seen. Other people have seen God, so... Oh, wait. That's first person evidence once more. I apologize - Point one is useless for both you and God. You haven't proven yourself and I haven't proven God with that.
Point 2 is your quote by fiat - I accept that you leave DNA evidence, but I'm again taking your word for it. I guess point 2 doesn't count for you OR God, either.
Point 3 - Again, I trusted that you have legal documents, but that's you giving me first person proofs. So you failed to prove yourself there. God, on the other hand, can be seen in everything from American currency to other legal documents.
Point 4 was actually incorrect. You violate several classical Newtonian physics on a quantum level.
So... I apologize - You failed to prove yourself while God, according to your laws, was 1/4. So technically God is more proveable than you. Hmm...
Care to try again? Maybe you can be just as real as God next time.
2) The whole universe is his DNA evidence.
3) Courts of law have people swearing in on bibles, making the bible one of the largest 'legal documents' in existence.
4) Newtonian or Quantum? On a quantum level, you violate numerous laws of physics.
There! Proof God exists according to the same proofs you required - Your first point was simple 'Fiat' - I actually cannot see you, but I trust you when you say you can be seen. Other people have seen God, so... Oh, wait. That's first person evidence once more. I apologize - Point one is useless for both you and God. You haven't proven yourself and I haven't proven God with that.
Point 2 is your quote by fiat - I accept that you leave DNA evidence, but I'm again taking your word for it. I guess point 2 doesn't count for you OR God, either.
Point 3 - Again, I trusted that you have legal documents, but that's you giving me first person proofs. So you failed to prove yourself there. God, on the other hand, can be seen in everything from American currency to other legal documents.
Point 4 was actually incorrect. You violate several classical Newtonian physics on a quantum level.
So... I apologize - You failed to prove yourself while God, according to your laws, was 1/4. So technically God is more proveable than you. Hmm...
Care to try again? Maybe you can be just as real as God next time.
good one that old guy.
you do make me chuckle!
Original post by ThatOldGuy
1) You can see God.
2) The whole universe is his DNA evidence.
3) Courts of law have people swearing in on bibles, making the bible one of the largest 'legal documents' in existence.
4) Newtonian or Quantum? On a quantum level, you violate numerous laws of physics.
There! Proof God exists according to the same proofs you required - Your first point was simple 'Fiat' - I actually cannot see you, but I trust you when you say you can be seen. Other people have seen God, so... Oh, wait. That's first person evidence once more. I apologize - Point one is useless for both you and God. You haven't proven yourself and I haven't proven God with that.
Point 2 is your quote by fiat - I accept that you leave DNA evidence, but I'm again taking your word for it. I guess point 2 doesn't count for you OR God, either.
Point 3 - Again, I trusted that you have legal documents, but that's you giving me first person proofs. So you failed to prove yourself there. God, on the other hand, can be seen in everything from American currency to other legal documents.
Point 4 was actually incorrect. You violate several classical Newtonian physics on a quantum level.
So... I apologize - You failed to prove yourself while God, according to your laws, was 1/4. So technically God is more proveable than you. Hmm...
Care to try again? Maybe you can be just as real as God next time.
2) The whole universe is his DNA evidence.
3) Courts of law have people swearing in on bibles, making the bible one of the largest 'legal documents' in existence.
4) Newtonian or Quantum? On a quantum level, you violate numerous laws of physics.
There! Proof God exists according to the same proofs you required - Your first point was simple 'Fiat' - I actually cannot see you, but I trust you when you say you can be seen. Other people have seen God, so... Oh, wait. That's first person evidence once more. I apologize - Point one is useless for both you and God. You haven't proven yourself and I haven't proven God with that.
Point 2 is your quote by fiat - I accept that you leave DNA evidence, but I'm again taking your word for it. I guess point 2 doesn't count for you OR God, either.
Point 3 - Again, I trusted that you have legal documents, but that's you giving me first person proofs. So you failed to prove yourself there. God, on the other hand, can be seen in everything from American currency to other legal documents.
Point 4 was actually incorrect. You violate several classical Newtonian physics on a quantum level.
So... I apologize - You failed to prove yourself while God, according to your laws, was 1/4. So technically God is more proveable than you. Hmm...
Care to try again? Maybe you can be just as real as God next time.
1. you literally cannot see god, otherwise i'd know he's real
2. i don't think you understand what DNA is
3. that means absolutely nothing
4. i violate no laws of physics, i exist within the universe.
im 100% sure you're just trolling so i will end it here
Original post by mangala
scientific, logical evidence which points towards the existence of god
convert me from atheism
convert me from atheism
I'm back
WMAP - The mapping of the knowledge, by the scientific community, of how the universe, from initial creation, to the rings showing the expansion of the universe - where we sit now.
The initial burst of creation - Genesis 1:1-2In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Earth,-Creation-Of
....to the expansion universe - "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:Isaiah 42:5
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.Job 26:7
http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
Science has proved God - nice 5 minute clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA
Original post by mangala
1. you literally cannot see god, otherwise i'd know he's real
2. i don't think you understand what DNA is
3. that means absolutely nothing
4. i violate no laws of physics, i exist within the universe.
im 100% sure you're just trolling so i will end it here
2. i don't think you understand what DNA is
3. that means absolutely nothing
4. i violate no laws of physics, i exist within the universe.
im 100% sure you're just trolling so i will end it here
1. You can literally see God. Several people claim to have - Moses, Mohammed, Buddha(Several, in fact) to name a few. The fact that you haven't is simply the same as me claiming you can't be real because I haven't seen you. Again, we're at 1st person testimonies so that means nothing.
2) This isn't an argument - Again, you haven't proven you leave DNA evidence. You just claimed it - First person testimonies aren't acceptable as you've said.
3) God appears on American currency - "In God We Trust". On the back of said bill is the legally binding statement: "This currency is legal tender." - If you're now going back and saying that legal paperwork doesn't count, I'll accept that, but it means you're discounting yet another 'Proof' - One that you used to try to prove your existence.
4) You actually do. Here is an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29
Everyone does - Literally everyone and everything on a quantum level violate Newtonian Physics principles.
However, I have to admit to being even more confused. Since you now are claiming that legal documents do not prove existence(One of the proofs you used for yourself) and that first person testimonies don't prove anything, you've now removed several options. You still haven't proven yourself as existing and I am no closer to knowing what proofs you -would- accept.
Care to try proving your own existence again? I'll use your same methodology to prove God's existence.
Original post by Racoon
I'm back
WMAP - The mapping of the knowledge, by the scientific community, of how the universe, from initial creation, to the rings showing the expansion of the universe - where we sit now.
The initial burst of creation - Genesis 1:1-2In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Earth,-Creation-Of
....to the expansion universe - "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:Isaiah 42:5
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.Job 26:7
http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
Science has proved God - nice 5 minute clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA
WMAP - The mapping of the knowledge, by the scientific community, of how the universe, from initial creation, to the rings showing the expansion of the universe - where we sit now.
The initial burst of creation - Genesis 1:1-2In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Earth,-Creation-Of
....to the expansion universe - "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:Isaiah 42:5
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.Job 26:7
http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
Science has proved God - nice 5 minute clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA
Matching bible verses to the big bang theory does not mean they are true. Before the big bang theory existed, you would've just picked different passages or said that they meant different things.
Peroxi, as a knowledgable person, i'll assume that you appreciate whereas standard physics is a first degree knowledge, philosophy, and in this case 'metaphysics' is a higher level science. And thus takes precedence and priority over physics, in any such, 'bar room debate'.
But then you already knew that right??
But then you already knew that right??
There could be psychological reasons to believe in God :P?
Original post by ThatOldGuy
1. You can literally see God. Several people claim to have - Moses, Mohammed, Buddha(Several, in fact) to name a few. The fact that you haven't is simply the same as me claiming you can't be real because I haven't seen you. Again, we're at 1st person testimonies so that means nothing.
2) This isn't an argument - Again, you haven't proven you leave DNA evidence. You just claimed it - First person testimonies aren't acceptable as you've said.
3) God appears on American currency - "In God We Trust". On the back of said bill is the legally binding statement: "This currency is legal tender." - If you're now going back and saying that legal paperwork doesn't count, I'll accept that, but it means you're discounting yet another 'Proof' - One that you used to try to prove your existence.
4) You actually do. Here is an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29
Everyone does - Literally everyone and everything on a quantum level violate Newtonian Physics principles.
However, I have to admit to being even more confused. Since you now are claiming that legal documents do not prove existence(One of the proofs you used for yourself) and that first person testimonies don't prove anything, you've now removed several options. You still haven't proven yourself as existing and I am no closer to knowing what proofs you -would- accept.
Care to try proving your own existence again? I'll use your same methodology to prove God's existence.
2) This isn't an argument - Again, you haven't proven you leave DNA evidence. You just claimed it - First person testimonies aren't acceptable as you've said.
3) God appears on American currency - "In God We Trust". On the back of said bill is the legally binding statement: "This currency is legal tender." - If you're now going back and saying that legal paperwork doesn't count, I'll accept that, but it means you're discounting yet another 'Proof' - One that you used to try to prove your existence.
4) You actually do. Here is an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29
Everyone does - Literally everyone and everything on a quantum level violate Newtonian Physics principles.
However, I have to admit to being even more confused. Since you now are claiming that legal documents do not prove existence(One of the proofs you used for yourself) and that first person testimonies don't prove anything, you've now removed several options. You still haven't proven yourself as existing and I am no closer to knowing what proofs you -would- accept.
Care to try proving your own existence again? I'll use your same methodology to prove God's existence.
1. they exist within holy books, which i do not believe in so whatever is in them means nothing unless it can be proven by science
2. im not saying the evidence in me leaving DNA evidence is me stating it - im saying you yourself and everyone else can check my DNA evidence
3. how does god being on currency prove he is real? that's completely meaningless. i could draw an alien on it, doesnt mean they are real
4. i said legal documents. among other things, prove MY existence - i'm not expecting you to find god's birth certificate.
Always glad to entertain!
In order:
1) Several people have claimed to have seen God as stated before. What you're doing now is what's called a 'Base Assumption fallacy'.
2) I was using a metaphor. I apologize you didn't get it - However, that point was irrelevant as I can only take him(And you) at your word that you leave DNA. Since that is first person testimonial, we have to dismiss it as per the original ideals.
3) Again, base assumption fallacy. You can claim he can't, but numerous people have said they have seen him.
4) Absolutely true! So if one were to jigger about with things on a quantum level, they'd violate no laws of physics. You're right - I apologize. God doesn't violate any known laws of physics with miracles so long as they were performed on a quantum level. Thank you for this.
Again, we're no closer to knowing if the original poster actually exists or not. Oh, dear.
In order:
1) Several people have claimed to have seen God as stated before. What you're doing now is what's called a 'Base Assumption fallacy'.
2) I was using a metaphor. I apologize you didn't get it - However, that point was irrelevant as I can only take him(And you) at your word that you leave DNA. Since that is first person testimonial, we have to dismiss it as per the original ideals.
3) Again, base assumption fallacy. You can claim he can't, but numerous people have said they have seen him.
4) Absolutely true! So if one were to jigger about with things on a quantum level, they'd violate no laws of physics. You're right - I apologize. God doesn't violate any known laws of physics with miracles so long as they were performed on a quantum level. Thank you for this.
Again, we're no closer to knowing if the original poster actually exists or not. Oh, dear.
Original post by mangala
1. they exist within holy books, which i do not believe in so whatever is in them means nothing unless it can be proven by science
2. im not saying the evidence in me leaving DNA evidence is me stating it - im saying you yourself and everyone else can check my DNA evidence
3. how does god being on currency prove he is real? that's completely meaningless. i could draw an alien on it, doesnt mean they are real
4. i said legal documents. among other things, prove MY existence - i'm not expecting you to find god's birth certificate.
2. im not saying the evidence in me leaving DNA evidence is me stating it - im saying you yourself and everyone else can check my DNA evidence
3. how does god being on currency prove he is real? that's completely meaningless. i could draw an alien on it, doesnt mean they are real
4. i said legal documents. among other things, prove MY existence - i'm not expecting you to find god's birth certificate.
Thank you for the update!
1) And I do not believe in you. Therefor, any words to your effect that you exist must be discounted.
2) Okay - Show me your DNA evidence. Otherwise, I can simply say "God does, too." and you would be forced to accept it and welcome your newfound faith
3) You're the one that stated legal documents were proof of your existence. American Currency is legal tender. Since you were stating that legal documents were proof, I obviously had to go by your claims and find legal documents with God on it. If you're claiming they're not proof, then you've now eliminated legal documents and first person testimonies.
4) See point 3.
There! Care to try another tack to prove you exist?
a quote from the wiki article that old guy provided us with...
Theories in physics like the Butterfly effect from chaos theory open up the possibility of a type of distributed parameter systems in causality. The butterfly effect theory proposes:"Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system."This opens up the opportunity to understand a distributed causality.
What this means for the lay person (you and me, and the standard tsr user), is that time can move backwards and forwards in the quantum, and thus 'real big and lived universe', with equal validity and reliabilty.
The obvious example of this with regards to history, is 'war is written by the winners', so for example, whilst 'some' republicans may see vietnam as a victory, with time and common sense, this has come to now be regarded as one of the biggest defeats America has suffered. This also brings in to the science of politics, anthropology, the media and terrorism, all of which you need to have studied to fully understand this example.
I'm sorry if you are stuck with this debate up in your ivory tower, but equally as the majority of the worlds population do believe in some kind of diety another, be him Christ, Allah, Shiva or Buddha, if we were going to be fairly democratic and take an overall vote on the issue, you would lose there as well. Okay??
Theories in physics like the Butterfly effect from chaos theory open up the possibility of a type of distributed parameter systems in causality. The butterfly effect theory proposes:"Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system."This opens up the opportunity to understand a distributed causality.
What this means for the lay person (you and me, and the standard tsr user), is that time can move backwards and forwards in the quantum, and thus 'real big and lived universe', with equal validity and reliabilty.
The obvious example of this with regards to history, is 'war is written by the winners', so for example, whilst 'some' republicans may see vietnam as a victory, with time and common sense, this has come to now be regarded as one of the biggest defeats America has suffered. This also brings in to the science of politics, anthropology, the media and terrorism, all of which you need to have studied to fully understand this example.
I'm sorry if you are stuck with this debate up in your ivory tower, but equally as the majority of the worlds population do believe in some kind of diety another, be him Christ, Allah, Shiva or Buddha, if we were going to be fairly democratic and take an overall vote on the issue, you would lose there as well. Okay??
Sorry, but logical positivism has been dead since the 20th Century through the work of mathematicians like Godel or the work of many philosophers like Quine, Popper or Wittgenstein. You're just begging the question against the theist that scientific testing or empirical evidence is the right norm for determining whether things are true or not.
Furthermore, the idea of science not having an opinion on God might be true, but that doesn't mean things like history, philosophy or theology won't be able to weight in on the matter (which, they have).
(3) also fails for this reason. It might constitute as weak evidence, but not for the reasons you state.
Furthermore, the idea of science not having an opinion on God might be true, but that doesn't mean things like history, philosophy or theology won't be able to weight in on the matter (which, they have).
(3) also fails for this reason. It might constitute as weak evidence, but not for the reasons you state.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I don't think there is any convincing scientific evidence for God's existence, otherwise it would be all over the news.
Wouldn't scientific evidence aka physical, tangible, visible, audible proof of God's existence
defeat the purpose of belief?
Also there "is" something called the "god particle."
I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.
Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.
So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.
Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.
But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.
Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.
So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.
Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.
But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.
Original post by Scrappy-coco
If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?
I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."
Original post by ThatOldGuy
Thank you for the update!
1) And I do not believe in you. Therefor, any words to your effect that you exist must be discounted.
2) Okay - Show me your DNA evidence. Otherwise, I can simply say "God does, too." and you would be forced to accept it and welcome your newfound faith
3) You're the one that stated legal documents were proof of your existence. American Currency is legal tender. Since you were stating that legal documents were proof, I obviously had to go by your claims and find legal documents with God on it. If you're claiming they're not proof, then you've now eliminated legal documents and first person testimonies.
4) See point 3.
There! Care to try another tack to prove you exist?
1) And I do not believe in you. Therefor, any words to your effect that you exist must be discounted.
2) Okay - Show me your DNA evidence. Otherwise, I can simply say "God does, too." and you would be forced to accept it and welcome your newfound faith
3) You're the one that stated legal documents were proof of your existence. American Currency is legal tender. Since you were stating that legal documents were proof, I obviously had to go by your claims and find legal documents with God on it. If you're claiming they're not proof, then you've now eliminated legal documents and first person testimonies.
4) See point 3.
There! Care to try another tack to prove you exist?
clearly every single point you made is ridiculous, so i am not going to try and prove you wrong because you'll just say "what is evidence/??? be clear buddy =) "
so, please give me another example of what you would class as evidence and we'll go from there
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Finding myself.
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Miracle
- Christianity
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Masturbating - is it okay?
- Controversial views in Cambridge interview?
- are you religious? Wh? Why not? What do you follow?
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- What is the meaning of life?
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- Explain two ways in which the belief about the creation influences Christians today.
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)
- archaeology/anthropology a levels
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- OCR - Religious Studies
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
