Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?
September 1st, 2013
03:26 AM ET

Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?

Opinion by Jeffrey Weiss, Special to CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='WeissFaithWrite']

(CNN) - Pope Francis surprised Israeli and Palestinian leaders last month when he invited them to a special prayer ceremony at the Vatican this Sunday - not least because religion has often been the source, not the salve, of the region's conflicts.

Still, Pope Francis offered his "home" - the Vatican - as the perfect place to plea for some divine assistance, and Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dutifully agreed to attend.

"The Pope has placed it in this perspective: Prayer is like a force for peace,” Vatican Secretary of State Archbishop Pietro Parolin told Vatican Radio.

"We hope that there, where human efforts have so far failed, the Lord offers to all the wisdom and fortitude to carry out a real peace plan."

But Sunday's special ceremony at the Vatican raises an interesting question: When Francis, Peres and Abbas bow their heads in prayer, will they be talking to the same God?

After all, Jews, Christians and Muslims all trace their faiths back to a fellow named Abraham, whom they all claim was chosen for special treatment by the Almighty.

Not academic

The “same God” question is one theologians have hammered at for as long as there have been enough religions for the query to make sense.

The question is hardly academic, though. In fact, a number of politicians, religious leaders and scholars have expressed hope in recent years that a convincing answer on the God question might dampen the violence committed in His name.

Yale Divinity School theologian Miroslav Volf recently edited a book titled “Do We Worship the Same God? Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue.”

In the introduction, Volf explained why the title question matters:

"To ask: ‘Do we have a common God?’ is, among other things, to worry: ‘Can we live together?’ That’s why whether or not a given community worships the same god as does another community has always been a crucial cultural and political question and not just a theological one."

On the other hand, there’s CNN Belief Blog contributor and Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero.

His book on this subject is titled “God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World.”

Prothero writes:

“For more than a generation we have followed scholars and sages down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world where all gods are one … In fact this naive theological groupthink – call it Godthink – has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clash of religions that threaten us worldwide.”

In the world of politics, President George W. Bush asserted the unity side of the argument more than once in the years after the 9/11 attacks - often as a way to deflect accusations that America was at war with Islam.

Bush told Al Arabiya television, “I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality.”

Pope Francis invites Israeli, Palestinian leaders to Vatican peace talks

Pope John Paul II drew from the same rhetorical well several times.

“We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection,” he first said in a speech to Muslims in Morocco in 1985.

Looking for a more recent example? Consider the plight of Vatican envoy to Malaysia.

Shortly after he arrived there last year, Archbishop Joseph Marino said that is was fine by him that Christian translations of the Bible into Malay use the word “Allah” for “God.”

“Allah” is, of course, the Arabic word for God and is found in the Quran. The Christian translators explained that since most Malaysians are Muslim, it’s the word they’re most comfortable with and therefore the best choice for the translation.

But many Muslim authorities in Malaysia were furious. They say Christians are slipping in the familiar word as a way to convert Muslims. And conversion of Muslims is all but illegal in Malaysia.

There’s a lawsuit ongoing about the translations. Marino had to apologize for pushing into Malaysian politics.

Points of disagreement

So what do the “Abrahamic” religions disagree about?

Among other things: the purpose of humanity, the relationship of God and humanity, sin, forgiveness, salvation, the afterlife, Jesus, Muhammad, the calendar, and the religious importance of Abraham himself.

Plus the nature of God.

Any summary will leave out enormous nuance. Internal divisions within religions have fueled some of the worst examples of human violence. Consider the long and frequently bloody history of troubles between Catholics and Protestants or the growing death toll of Muslim-on-Muslim attacks.

But there are common elements about God widely accepted in each tradition.


Start with Judaism, since it came first and established roots that carried into the other two.

Jewish tradition teaches that there is one and only one God, creator of everything, and He established physical and moral laws. As Judaism’s preeminent prayer says: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

This God walks and talks directly with His creations – for a while.

Eventually, He chooses one particular nomad (Abraham) to father a mighty nation that God sets up as an example to other nations.

This God likes the smell of burning meat and demands other extremely specific physical offerings as evidence of obedience and repentance. And He gives His chosen people a particular set of laws – but doesn’t mind discussion and even argument about those laws.

A famous rabbinic saying implies that every word in Judaism’s sacred texts can be understood in 70 correct (but related) ways. And human reasoning can even trump divine intention. (No kidding. It’s in the Talmud)

This God judges His people every year. Tradition says he’s willing to accept imperfection, as long as it comes with repentance.

He’s big on obedience, not so much on faith. He’s not nearly as attentive to the behaviors of non-Jews. (There’s a famous Jewish joke with the punch line “Would you mind choosing somebody else once in a while?”)

Tradition holds that there’s a World To Come after death where moral accounts will somehow be settled. But this God is vague on details.


The most obvious differences in the Christian God are the traditional teachings about the Trinity and Jesus. God is three separate persons who are also one. How? Christianity says the Trinity is a “mystery” of faith.

According to Christian tradition, God begets a son who is somehow also Him but not Him to atone for Original Sin. He sacrifices that son though a brutal death and thus achieves humanity's salvation.

But the son, who also is God, rises from the dead. And that sacrifice redeems eternally all who accept and believe in it. Faith, not behavior, is the essential measure of salvation.

This God is willing to vastly expand what it means to be among His “chosen people.” He’s also willing to cancel many of the laws that had applied to that chosen group for this expanded membership.

Orthodox Jews say that God prohibits them from eating a cheeseburger; Christians say God has no problem with them wolfing down Big Macs.

Unlike the Jewish God, whose instructions are almost all about this world, the Christian God is focused more on eternal salvation: heaven and hell.

Finally, for this God, much of the Jewish scriptures (which are all God’s word) are actually about foreshadowing Jesus. Including Abraham.


The Muslim God is a bit more like the Jewish God.

There is no Trinity in Muslim tradition. Jesus was a prophet, but no more divine than other prophets.

God has never has had anything like physical attributes and has no gender. (Some Muslim commentators say that the noun “Allah” is masculine, but only in the way that all nouns in some languages include gender.)

Muslim tradition holds that God wants one thing from humans: Submission. The word “Islam” is defined as “submission to the will of God.”

For Muslims, all true prophets in Jewish and Christian traditions were actually Muslim because they knew to submit correctly to God. Differences between Muslim, Jewish and Christian interpretations of God are due to errors that crept into the other two faiths, Islam teaches.

The Muslim God, like the other two, initially demanded that Abraham sacrifice a son. But the Muslim God wanted Abraham’s son Ishmael, not Isaac, who Jewish tradition holds was offered as a the sacrifice.

The Muslim God also designated, from before the world began, a perfect man to be his final prophet: Muhammad. God’s perfect truths are found only in the Quran and in the sayings of Muhammad, the hadiths.

And the Muslim God, like the Christian God but unlike the Jewish God, will welcome believers to paradise and condemn many non-Muslims - exactly which ones is a matter of much discussion - to eternal torment.

Final answer

So do Christians Muslims, and Jews, really all worship the same God?

In two major volumes on the subject recently published by scholars from various faiths and traditions, including Volf’s, the most inclusive response from these scholars is basically: Yes, and it’s our God.

This is not a new way of answering the question.

In 1076, Pope Gregory VII wrote this to a Muslim leader: “We believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way…”

But like many other religious leaders on all sides of the argument, Gregory insisted that his version of the Almighty is the one whom the others are unknowingly and incompletely worshiping.

A less exclusivist set of religions might shrug off the differences. But all three claim to have the only “True Faith.”

So do all three faiths actually worship the same deity, whether they call him God or Allah or Adonai?

God only knows.

Jeffrey Weiss is an award-winning religion reporter in Dallas.The views expressed in this column belong to Weiss. A version of this story first ran in September 2013. 

CNN's Daniel Burke contributed to this article. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • History • Islam • Judaism • Muslim • Religious violence • Torah • Vatican

soundoff (7,438 Responses)
  1. Extra Medium

    Can't be the same one god because if it was the SAME ONE GOD he/she would smack all Xtians, Mxlims, Jewx to smithereen for being hypocrites

    September 6, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Realist


      They all worship the same god, yet that ... http://www.GODisIMAGINARY.com


      September 8, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
  2. Jen

    So how is it that your "superior" being got so much wrong, and gave us problems like cancer to deal with. And natural disasters. He must be quite the berk, Vic. You can keep your sky fairy story to yourself please if that's how "superior" your fairy is.

    September 6, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Lionly Lamb

      Sired Jen...

      God by your bloviating stance would entail Him to be a God of Nurtured Naturalism whose best nurtured naturalism would be the plant we call being cannabis sativa, hemp, weed, grass or Marijuana... It is nowadays being shown to have medicinally beneficial for many illnesses including a cure for all cancers and is beneficial for epileptics and even sufferers of seizures and PTSD and eases menopause cramps in women not to mention a persons libido... God or in many person's understanding, Nature has given to humanity a simple plant that grows almost anywhere and one can have up to four harvests a year while these fossil fuel con men are still not willing to leave their psychological addictions for messing up Mother Nature by drilling and lumbering and mining away of her sublime covetous reasons for giving civilization a simple herb to help us all live our Life with all the benefits that a "regulated" hemp industry would yield to us...

      September 6, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
      • Lionly Lamb

        It is nowadays being shown to be medicinally beneficial

        September 6, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • midwest rail

      cancer is a curse mankind brought on itself and if there are any fairies here it might just be you.

      September 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm |
      • midwest rail

        obvious name thief...boring.

        September 7, 2013 at 8:31 am |
  3. rumple

    there is a website that exposes Islam

    answering – islam dot org

    google it. you will know the truth.

    September 6, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • Ken

      There are websites showing the falacies of all three faiths, so why limit yourself?

      September 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
  4. Johnny

    I prefer to think that the Bible is god's way of weeding out the really dumb among us. Basically anyone who reads the bible and decides it is the literal word of god goes to hell for being a complete moron.

    September 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • Realist


      September 8, 2013 at 9:11 pm |
  5. GoingDown

    So the question is really do these three "faiths" share the same delusion? Yes, they do, but each loves to provide its own details regarding the actual specifics of unknowable metaphysical details. eg. Humans having a "soul" and what specific things happen to said "soul".

    I find it sad that people are being taught to "respect" someone else's religion when perhaps instead, we should be saying, "Hey this is some worthless drivel from centuries ago when Earth was flat and sickness was caused by witchcraft"

    September 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • GoingUp

      Agreed. I see posts online a lot slamming Islam but really its a twin to Christianity, I would never put one over the other, they both hold us back as a species.

      September 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
      • GoingOn

        I agree. Humanity needs to move on and put aside delusions about tooth fairies that are going to save us from our self-created problems.

        September 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      I think the real questions should be, "Can Christians, Muslims and Jews who worship the same God all be The Truth?"

      I think anyone with any sense would answer "obviously not since they contradict each other." which means the most logical answer is that all three of them are FAR from The Truth.

      September 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
      • Thusly

        Bingo. We have a winner.

        September 6, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
      • Kenosis

        Or it could be that within this multiversal existence that they are all the truth. But of course, so it 42.

        September 6, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
        • Terry

          Nice try at being impressive (epic fail!), but we are talking about a single universe.

          September 6, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
        • Kenosis

          I'm just talking about what is, you are talking about what isn't. I am sorry that fact gets in the way of your presumptions.

          September 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
        • Ken

          You have proof that the multiverse actually exists?

          September 7, 2013 at 2:14 am |
  6. Donald Duck

    My god is better than your god

    September 6, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • Daffy Duck

      Not a chance punk. My god is way better than your god.

      September 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I shall pray to St. Brigid and St. Gall for you.
      May blessed patron saints of poultry and birds (respectively) guide you to The Truth.

      September 6, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Howard Duck

      I am made in my god's image... good looking and debonair

      September 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
      • Howard Duck

        and I know a good-looking 80's chic when I see one... (even if she can't sing worth a damn)

        September 6, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I crack myself up...

          September 6, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          oops! I meant to say 'quack' myself up...

          September 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

      Here a duck
      There a duck
      Everywhere a drunk duck.
      Old McDarwin lost da farm.

      September 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

      Get yer ducks in a row. It's time to play St. Valentine's Day Massacre on the back forty.

      September 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
  7. Leigh Anne

    Religion's main problem is often a total lack of humility. I not only want to worship...but I want MY religion to be seen as superior to yours. Religion is VERY weak and ego-centric when it becomes like this.

    September 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Vic

      Ephesians 2:8,9

      "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

      Scripture Is From:

      New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation


      September 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
      • sam stone

        Thanks for proving the point, vic

        September 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
        • hharri

          Dear editors, what is a nasty weed patch? What does ms. Stone mean when she asks Christians to suck on a 12 gauge? Pleasuring jeeeebus with checks puffing after he explodes? Any comment you disgusting pigs?

          September 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
      • Ken

        But, do you not feel that your religion is superior to Islam, Judaism, other faiths and even other brands of Christianity?

        September 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
        • Vic

          The way I look at it is that God Himself, Who I believe is the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit, is the One Who is superior to everything including humans and their efforts and religion.

          September 6, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Terry

          So superior that he created legions of horrible diseases for his creations to try to deal with, that cause terrible suffering to them. Some superior creature ya got there -we've got better names for such a creep than "superior".

          September 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • Ken

          Soooo, ... That would be a yes then!

          September 7, 2013 at 1:37 am |
    • sam stone

      of course, and the creator of the universe wants nothing more than a personal relationship with his followers

      September 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
      • GoingUp

        ...because Humans are just such good little organisms!

        September 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
  8. Just the Facts Ma'am...

    If you put Allah on one side of a coin and Jesus on the other, which side would come up most often when flipped?

    Would it change based on the belief of the flipper?

    Would it change if the flipper prayed about it real hard?

    September 6, 2013 at 11:50 am |

      Godless Vagabond
      Which side would be heads and which side tails? We can argue that for a while, eh?

      September 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
      • Johnny

        or perhaps they are the same, and it would end up being a double sided coin.

        September 6, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
  9. Just the Facts Ma'am...

    Wizzlewoonies can fly faster than light, even though physics says they can't, since I invented them, they can.

    Lokenmullers are so strong they can pick up the Sun with one hand!

    Funkletrunkles are the most beautiful creatures the universe has ever known, to bad you've never seen one...

    God is infinite and eternal even though nothing else in the entire universe has ever been shown to be infinite or eternal, not even the stars themselves which will eventually burn out and die.

    Unicorns can run on comet tails and jump from one solar system to the next which is why we never see one...

    September 6, 2013 at 11:37 am |
  10. Jon

    So do all three faiths actually worship the same deity, whether they call him God or Allah or Adonai?

    September 6, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Idol family!

      we are here 😉

      September 6, 2013 at 11:01 am |
      • NFL

        you cretins! stop deleting posts!

        September 6, 2013 at 11:02 am |
        • Idol family!

          when holy cat's got the tongue, that's the best we can do for you 😉

          September 6, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • The clueless are so obvi

      If none of them can provide reasonable evidence for their god, then how could anyone possibly know whether they are the same? Of course the more important question to the individual is "do you think, do you believe they are the same god?"

      September 6, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  11. The clueless are so obvi


    September 6, 2013 at 10:57 am |
  12. Vic

    Macroevolution is basically evolution above the level of species. In other words, new species forming from within species, which is NOT proven, is NOT fact!

    For evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!

    The reason those fossils are missing is that the Origin of all life is Metaphysical and outside of this existence, aka God!

    September 6, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • Ken

      So, you want to see fossils of animals before animals evolved?!?

      September 6, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • Dr. Couth

      Vic, you are grasping at straws and you are pathetic. Generally, evolutionary science does not use the term macro evolution. Evolution as expected occurs in a wide variety of step sizes.

      As for your now hackneyed and absurd whining about "theory", as many others have noted, creationism that you are trying to pawn off here incessantly, is not even a scientific theory.

      You creationists just get more and more desperate, but you can't even put together a consistent theory with any support in evidence. You are a laughingstock to more intelligent members of your species. Please stop trying to sell us on your silly god fraud.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • Sue

      Vic, your crazy god claims have less support in evidence (none, actually), than evolution does. Seriously, get an education in modern science. That is, if your weak brain can handle it.

      Evolution has been observed. Case closed, stupid.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:34 am |
      • hharri

        jesus, too, you idiot. nuff said. lol

        what jerks atheists r.

        September 7, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Very good Vic. Thanks.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:39 am |
      • tallulah13

        So basically, Bob, you support misinformation and downright lies, as long as they support your personal belief. Did you learn this particular "moral" in church?

        September 6, 2013 at 10:49 am |
        • hharri

          church of NOGOD but us

          September 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
      • Vic

        You bet!

        September 6, 2013 at 10:49 am |
      • Allen


        September 6, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Nathan Wong

      Vic, as that fellow said earlier, we've got the fossils, so you creationist nuts lose. That's all there is to it. The evidence of the fossil record alone blows away your creationist tales completely, but now that is not the only evidence for evolution. Think about that, or go on looking like the quack that you are, unaware of the state of modern biological science.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:40 am |
      • Vic

        The "Fossil Record" is flawed at best!

        Evolution is so improbable that it is biologically impossible! Mathematically, anything less probable than 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) IS IMPOSSIBLE! The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than 10^4,478,146, need not mention the rest!

        September 6, 2013 at 11:02 am |
        • Ken

          I suspect that, unless we had a fossil for every individual creature that has ever lived, creationists will still be pointing at the "gaps". Well, you can line up fossils in the record pretty much like frames in a movie and run it forward to see evolution in action. Tell me, Vic. Do you suspect that the plot of a movie would change dramatically if you could view a movie in 60 frames per second rather than the standard 30? That's what you're basically arguing here, that basically anything could be happening in between those frames.

          September 6, 2013 at 11:13 am |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          You want to talk about improbable, just look at the deluded and backwards thinking that goes on in religious persons minds as they do mental back flips to justify their already preconceived notions about how the universe works when faced with the actual science. DNA proves we did not descend from a single pair of original fully formed humans. Our DNA also proves humans interbred with neanderthals some 20-30,000 years ago, much farther back than any reading of Genesis can go especially with the lineage from Adam to Abraham thrown in. On top of that geologists have shown from seabed core samples and ice core samples that there was no global flood. This definitively proves the Genesis account bogus which then throws out the whole premise of inherited sin and some inborn need for a savior. All three of these religions derive their power from this creations myth and thus all three fall flat on their face when confronted by the facts.

          September 6, 2013 at 11:30 am |
        • In Santa we trust

          Pure nonsense. You can't say that evolution is impossible post hoc – we have evidence of evolution and the fact that we are here is evidence that it is not impossible. And who knows where you got your probability calculation.

          September 6, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • Johnny

          Ken you are so right. Every time a new fossil is found it just gives people like Vic two new "missing links" to complain about.

          September 6, 2013 at 11:40 am |
        • sam stone

          Evolution is impossible?

          How is that tailbone doing, slaveboy?

          September 6, 2013 at 11:40 am |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "And who knows where you got your probability calculation."

          Let's just say his calculation smells like a campground porta-potty... you figure out where he pulled it from...

          September 6, 2013 at 11:43 am |
        • Jens Gessner

          Fine, Vic, have it your way. I evolved, but you did not.

          September 6, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
        • ME II

          the "first living cell", as I suspect that you mean, wouldn't have evolved, so your calculation can't be right.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
      • Nathan Wong

        Vic, the anthropic principle alone entirely takes out any probability considerations. Your probability argument isn't even applicable.

        Seriously, it's pretty obvious why Christians like yourself have been so desperate to squash science. Science totally takes down your whole set of god myths, breaks up your pyramid scheme and destroys your fundraising ability, and shows what fools you really are. However, science is marching on, and slowly but surely, the Christian cult is falling apart. That's kind of fun to watch.

        September 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
        • Thinker...

          It will be replaced by someting else. People will believe whatever so long as it helps them feel secure and superior.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
        • sam stone

          t really is

          watching them flop around like fish on a dock

          September 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Gary

      Vic and Robert Brown -what a pair of idiots.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • Allen

      @Vic-Great point! well articulated!

      September 6, 2013 at 10:52 am |
      • tallulah13

        And entirely fabricated by people who fear and oppose real science! I guess it's easier for you to believe a lie, Allen, than it is for you to accept the reality that you really aren't the special child of god.

        September 6, 2013 at 10:59 am |
        • sum ting wong?

          If you are an evolutionist, provide the evidence. Have you even bothered to sift through the evidence if any available?!

          September 6, 2013 at 11:07 am |
        • Ken

          Have you? Seriously, there are mountains of the stuff, from a variety of fields. What evidence is there for creationism?

          September 6, 2013 at 11:28 am |
        • tallulah13

          Have you actually studied ANY evidence? The evidence of evolution is readily available to those who are willing and unafraid to look for the truth. Facts don't have an agenda. The fossils record and the genetic record stand on their own merits.

          September 6, 2013 at 11:34 am |
        • sum ting wong?

          Which fossil evidence what genetics, be specific and give one example of each.

          September 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
        • Johnny

          I would suggest that you start here :29+ Evidences for Macroevolution


          September 6, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
        • ME II

          biochemical evidence such as Cytochrome-c
          fossil evidence such as Tiktaalik, Ambuocetus, Archeoptryx (sp?), etc.
          Genetic evidence such as ERVs, Human Chromosome 2, etc.
          Biogeographical evidence such as Marsupials, penguins, etc.
          experimental evidence such as Lenski's long term e.coli experment

          ...to name a few.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
        • sum ting wong?

          biochemical evidence such as Cytochrome-cyto-C is just one of the thousands of sequences and is not proof of common ancestry,
          as there are more variations than similarities in the genetic code, on the other hand a study of the amino acid make-up reveals that man is closer to lamprey than are fish.

          fossil evidence such as Tiktaalik, Ambuocetus, Archeoptryx (sp?), etc.-These are not intermediate in form(Archeoptryx is a bird) and fail as transitional fossil evidence.

          Genetic evidence such as ERVs, Human Chromosome 2,, etc. There is lack of DNA sequence data for a head-to-head chromosomal fusion, there also exists a decided paucity of data to indicate a cryptic centromere.

          experimental evidence such as Lenski's long term e.coli experment-where is the proof of evolution in this experiment? It shows adaptation of the bacteria to its culture and does not prove evolution.
          In the absence of evidence, you must have tremendous faith as an evolutionist in your "belief system".

          September 7, 2013 at 11:10 am |
      • Vic

        Thank you Allen and Robert! God bless.

        September 6, 2013 at 11:09 am |
        • sam stone

          yes, thank you for agreeing with vic's hackneyed theories

          September 6, 2013 at 11:44 am |
        • Charles

          Did you mother have to thank the other mothers for getting their kids to play with you as a child? You seem very desperate to have anyone back you up I wonder if they're not just your sock puppets?

          September 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
        • Will

          No, they're not. At least this one is not.
          I do find it funny how many of you all swear at Christians and make fun of us

          September 6, 2013 at 2:35 pm |

          Godless Vagabond
          It's difficult not to make fun of someone whit such preposterous beliefs. But there is just no other way since you don't seem to be able to look at the overwhelming evidence for evolution and come to the obvious conclusion. Logic and reason don't work, so ridicule is all there is left. Start to think, and we'll be kinder.

          September 6, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
        • Will

          No, we will keep our God and our beliefs for God's word is true and when Christ returns, He will call us out and we will go to His side. He is the eternal God. He is true, just, kind, and love.
          See you might have memorized more arguments and facts than us, but ultimately you're not debating us, you're debating God. And He will prove you wrong, if he has to show you the scars on His hands where the nails went through His flesh and His blood poured out till He died for you.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • joe

          And He will prove you wrong, if he has to show you the scars on His hands where the nails went through His flesh and His blood poured out till He died for you.
          Every single time without exception, the God hides while the most uneducated, ignorant and mentally deluded in society do Its bidding.

          Why it's almost as if the God doesn't exist.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
        • Will

          How so?

          September 6, 2013 at 6:16 pm |
        • Lyons

          Too many tools preoccupied with who's thanking who!

          September 6, 2013 at 2:56 pm |

        • a bunch of crazies interested in a "thank you" comment.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • randy j

          What else do you do when you have a lot of disposable time? –Follow every thank you comment.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • Johnny

          Everyone will be sorry when Will's dad gets home.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
        • Ken

          The time to believe that something is true is when the preponderance of evidence supports it, not before.

          You say that we atheists have the facts and better arguments on our side, but that God will prove us wrong. How is this possible? Certainly not through logic. That leaves force, I suppose, but do you really believe that might makes right?

          I have no problem that the man Jesus probably lived and was crucified. What I don't believe is that he was a god and that his death was all part of some plan to make himself feel OK with allowing people into heaven. We are a long way from the time to believe such a claim.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
        • Will

          I never said that atheist have the better argument, sorry if that was what it seemed, but that was never my intent
          And no, I don't want you to believe that might makes right, I've not really shared my view. On this blog never as much as I have tried to defend what I believe. I do believe that God is the logical choice, but I understand that it doesn't seem like that always
          And yeah, but that, at least from my prospective is the important part

          September 7, 2013 at 12:17 am |
        • Ken

          I find it funny how religious folks will use even the mildest of vulgarities as an excuse not to address otherwise sound criticisms. I know that you may be sheltered from how the rest of the world speaks, but you might as well be dismissing people because they speak with a different accent than you do. The intellectually honest thing to do is address these people's questions even if you feel compelled to cluck your tongue at their choice of vocabulary.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
        • Will

          I'm not avoiding any questions, I was just making a statement. You can swear all you want, and I'll answer your questions. I'm just saying, I find it funny when people do it over email, specially since most people won't actually write the whole word out

          September 6, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
        • Ken

          What is your logical argument for God then?

          September 7, 2013 at 2:39 am |
        • Will

          Well, although I don't believe that there is any way to prove God nor do I think we will ever come particularly close even, I believe that the historical evidence in the form of copies of biblical manuscripts and the ancient towns archeologists have found that are in the Bible point to the Bible is a true authoritative book. I also believe that the nature of God is logical as are His actions, that is to say that He always looks at sin the same way, and is just.

          September 7, 2013 at 10:04 am |
        • Britney

          I can tell by your postings that you love Jesus. Have you followed the formula for salvation in Acts 2:38? I don't know why but I feel led to tell you to study this out. You do not have to be educated, or all knowing to have the wisdom of God....not that you aren't, I just see the name calling that is being thrown around. Luke was a doctor, Peter was a fisherman, Matthew was a tax collector....educated? Some! God uses whoever will raise their hand and say "I'll go" ...check this website out....It is FULL of scripturally based teachings rather than traditional teachings of the Catholic and Protestant churches. I hope it blesses you and leads you to the full truth of Jesus Christ


          September 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
        • Will

          Yes, I was baptized when I was younger and as I have gotten older realized though my walk, just how much Jesus loves me. I'll check out the link though for sure

          September 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium analyzed some 3 billion units of DNA.
        A human-chimp comparison revealed some 35 million mutations in the single units of the overall sequence and also found about 5 million additions to or subtractions from the genome involving chunks of DNA sequence.
        These changes point to when speciation occured and helps to build a model of our common ancestor.
        DNA ana/lysis has also revealed that all life is inter-related. We can inject human DNA into insect species, like flies, and manipulate their development just as effectively as if we used fly DNA.

        As for transitional fossils, Tiktaalik is a good starter.
        It is an example of how life developed the means to move from aquatic to terrestrial environments.

        September 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
        • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

          Right, they build it and you will come.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • sam stone

      vic, you come on here blathering about how JEEBUS IS LORD, and you want to talk about facts?

      go home, boy, and get your shinebox

      September 6, 2013 at 11:36 am |
      • Doobs

        "get your shine box" is such a great line.

        September 6, 2013 at 11:52 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Billy Batts is the Shah of Iran.


          September 6, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
        • sam stone

          It really is. Some folks take exception to it, though

          September 6, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • redzoa

      "Macroevolution is basically evolution above the level of species. In other words, new species forming from within species, which is NOT proven, is NOT fact!"

      This is demonstrably false, betraying Vic's ignorance of the relevant science. Speciation, the evolution of a novel daughter species from a parental species has been observed in almost every class of organism, from plants to vertebrates. For just a few examples:


      For an example of dramatic morphological change in a relatively short period, consider the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Add to this the fossil record displaying a progressive ordering of forms. Add to this phylogenetic analyses indicating common ancestry. Etc, etc . . .

      Regarding Vic's probability arguments, this too betrays a fundamental miscomprehension. One cannot calculate the odds of biological life arising because there is no way to bound the possible contributing components. In other words, there's no reasonable or remotely reliable way to determine the denominator in the "1 out of X" calculation. Furthermore, try calculating the odds that Vic made this original post. I offer it is impossible because when we consider all the relevant variables (the probability that all of Vic's ancestors chose the correct partners, that electricity was discovered, that computers and the internet were invented, etc, etc), we can easily see that the odds far exceed Vic's upper boundary for what is "possible" (and therein demonstrate the absurd nature of these types of probability arguments).

      September 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
  13. Arnold

    Hello everyone.
    A creationist told me that microevolution has a practical use but not macroevolution. Can you advise of any practical uses of macroevolution?

    September 6, 2013 at 9:41 am |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      There is only evolution. The idea of micro vs macro is apparently a creationist definition. My guess is that they cannot deny what they term microevolution because they would be forced to give up their meds, pets, food, ....

      September 6, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        Think of it like this, is an avalanche micro or macro? It starts out as micro being individual snowflakes that are falling and gather stacking one on top of another forming a mass just waiting for a single dog bark or branch crack to set it off down the mountain in very macro fashion. Our gee show that micro changes in our epigenetics can turn on and off genes or have them exhibit themselves in different ways and with enough flipping of the micro switches you can get some pretty impressive macro changes in relatively short periods of time.

        September 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          gee = genes...

          September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • tallulah13

      It's the same process on a different scale. If you truly want answers, you should do a google search and find an unbiased source of information rather than asking on a religious blog. Creationists are merely trying to create a conflict where none exists.

      September 6, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Vic

      The thing is that macroevolution is NOT proven, is NOT fact, it is a theory at best.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:02 am |
      • Ken

        So, what do you think all those millions of years of microevolution did to life on this planet then? You're like some guy who notices that it rains fairly frequently, but can't see how many years of that caused the erosion that has shaped rivers.

        September 6, 2013 at 10:19 am |
      • Dr. Couth

        Vic, you are grasping at straws and you are pathetic. Generally, evolutionary science does not use the term macro evolution. Evolution as expected occurs in a wide variety of step sizes.

        As for your now hackneyed and absurd whining about "theory", as many others have noted, creationism that you are trying to pawn off here incessantly, is not even a scientific theory.

        You creationists just get more and more desperate, but you can't even put together a consistent theory with any support in evidence. You are a laughingstock to more intelligent members of your species.

        September 6, 2013 at 10:21 am |
      • tallulah13

        And here's Vic, happily proving that he's either scientifically illiterate or that he's just another creationist trying to create conflict where none exists. From his previous postings, I would guess the former.

        September 6, 2013 at 10:43 am |
      • Johnny

        Vic,Evolution is as proven as gravity, if not more so.

        September 6, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Ken

      It's the same basic difference between history (macro-evolution) and current events (micro-evolution). Sure, history isn't as much practical use, but it does stimulate the mind a tad bit more than the weather report, what the Kardashians are up to, or what's on sale at WalMart.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      My "understanding" of the creationist definition of macroevolution is the formation of new species. You only have to look at your dog to see the benefits and proof of "macroevolution".

      September 6, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • Vic

      Macroevolution is basically evolution above the level of species. In other words, new species forming from within species, which is NOT proven, is NOT fact!

      For evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!

      The reason those fossils are missing is that the Origin of all life is Metaphysical and outside of this existence, aka God!

      September 6, 2013 at 10:28 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Speciation has been observed in laboratory experiments.
        Due to the time frames involved in spawning generation after generation of complex creatures, such experimentation is necessarily limited to specimens with short life spans/gestational periods like bacteria, single cell organisms and fruit flies.
        Changes are small but cu.mulative.

        Micro/Macro evolution are terms made up by Creationists as an obfuscatory tactic.
        It's aking to calling '1' a "micro-number" and '1000' a "macro-number". Enough 1s strung together will equal 1000.
        Creationists, especially Young Earth Creationists, often seem incapable of conceptualizing the vast time frames that are involved.

        September 6, 2013 at 10:56 am |
        • Vic

          Evolution is so improbable that it is biologically impossible! Mathematically, anything less probable than 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) IS IMPOSSIBLE! The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than 10^4,478,146, need not mention the rest!

          September 6, 2013 at 11:07 am |
        • Observer


          "Mathematically, anything less probable than 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) IS IMPOSSIBLE"

          Nonsense. Math "says" no such thing as seen by the HUGE difference in your supposed "standards".

          September 6, 2013 at 11:15 am |
        • Ken

          I wonder what the odds are for a being to have existed before the universe did?

          September 6, 2013 at 11:18 am |
        • Ken

          Try reading this

          Creationists love probability. If you are a speaker trying to bamboozle a lay audience, there is no better way than to drop in a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The trouble is that the things they are trying to quantify are inherently unquantifiable. There is no way to calculate the probability of an eye, for example, evolving over the course of millions of years of evolution by natural selection.

          from Probability and Evolution by Jason Rosenhouse


          September 6, 2013 at 11:26 am |
        • ME II

          "The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than 10^4,478,146, need not mention the rest!"

          Please show your work.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
        • ME II

          Good link, thanks.

          "The trouble is that the things they are trying to quantify are inherently unquantifiable. "

          Been trying to explain that for some time now.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
        • Ken

          ME II
          Glad to help out.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • Observer


      God is not proven. It's a religious theory.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:58 am |
      • Johnny

        His god is one of thousands of religious theories, all with the same amount of evidence. None.

        September 6, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
        • Ken

          They haven't earned the status of theory because they don't actually even attempt to explain anything. If anything, they're just speculations, and groundless ones at that.

          September 6, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • redzoa

      Macroevolution is simply the acc-umlated effects of microevolution over longer time scales. Accepting microevolution, but rejecting macroevolution is akin to accepting that inches exist, but that miles are somehow impossible.

      The question of "use" doesn't make sense to me. The word "use" presupposes a "user." Although humans do "use" the science of evolution (both micro and macro) in a variety of ways (e.g. agriculture, medicine, conservation biology, etc), organisms undergoing evolution do not generally "use" evolution, they experience evolution. An exception here might be some microbes which, when stressed, engage an error-prone genetic replication pathway which in turn provides more genetic variability and thereby, more opportunity for adaptability).

      September 6, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
      • Will

        No, it's not. See microevolution is adaption, it never results in new species. For instance if a wolf benefits from having a longer thinker coat, then those with such coats will be reproduce more and over time become more common than those without. Now if say the weather becomes warmer, then thick coats would become a negative trait and would hurt the wolf's ability to survive and reproduce, thus thicker coats would become less common. The wolf itself never changes not for good; the population simply changes temporarily and then changes again. Thus it's not the same as macroevolution because it never exults in a new species

        September 7, 2013 at 12:00 am |
        • redzoa

          @Will – Contrary to your claim, "microevolution" can result in a new species. For example, a few mutations in a critical binding pocket within the gamete receptors (the proteins that allow a male gamete to adhere to a female gamete) of various invertebrate marine organisms (these organisms simply discharge their gametes into the water in a blind shotgun mating strategy) can produce a reproductive isolation event between subpopulations. Further microevolution within these distinct subpopulations produces the more observable morphological features readily distinguishable as two distinct species, however, the actual speciation event took place in the initial microevolutionary change.

          Taking your wolf example, consider that chihuahuas and great danes are the products of your adaptive definition of microevolution. The biological definition of species involves reproductive isolation and because these two breeds cannot effectively interbreed, had such events transpired in nature, they would be classified as two different species. Speciation, therefore, can and does result from acc-umulated microevolutionary changes.

          I repeat, the only significant difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the time scale (and thereby relative morphological change) under consideration where a morphological change observable at the macroevolutionary scale is simply the acc-umulated adaptations at the microevolutionary scale.

          Pray tell, what intrinsic biological limit exists to restrict microevolutionary changes from acc-umulating to the extent that the resultant subpopulation is no longer reproductively compatible with the parental population? I'll save you the time of searching: there is no known limit. Similarly, there is no known intrinsic biological limit to the ability of adaptive microevolutionary change to continually and indefinitely modify, over sufficient lengths of time, the gross morphology of any particular form, i.e. observable macroevolutionary change up through the higher taxonomic levels.

          September 7, 2013 at 12:35 am |
        • redzoa

          Just in case you're still confused, here is the definition for "microevolution" from biology-online.org:



          noun, plural: microevolutions

          Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies.


          Example of small-scale change is the relatively small genetic variations or mutations leading to new varieties within a species. Other factors of change include natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.

          Microevolution differs from macroevolution in its approach to the analysis of the evolution process. Microevolution is reductionist whereas macroevolution is holistic."

          First, note that the "holistic" approach of macroevolution implicitly incorporates the geologic time scales within the fossil record, allowing for comparison and contrast of the relatively minor and major morphological divergence of various forms (i.e. morphometric cladistics). Also note that "adaptation" per se is not a required component of microevolution, only a change at the micro (i.e. typically primary genetic code level) level (e.g. genetic drift). Further note that microevolution produces subspecies (i.e. distinct subpopulations). Additionally, note that such microevolutionary changes can and do result in reproductive isolation between these subspecies/subpopulations (i.e. speciation). Lastly, note that once isolated, microevolutionary changes continually acc-umulate providing ever greater morphological divergence which over time allows for segregation of the many various forms within the higher taxonomic levels.

          September 7, 2013 at 12:53 am |
        • Will

          Granted, I will give you that on occasion, such genetic isolation does occur. But the other key point of microevolution is that while a new species can form in cases from such isolation, it does not indicate descent from a common ancestor. While species might by ancestors of the original group on animals, say those that were on the ark, no one single species is the ancestor of all those we find today.
          And your definition of microevolution is different from the one used by creationists

          September 7, 2013 at 9:58 am |
  14. arosebyanyothername

    Your author misspoke (mis-wrote? ) when they said Christians believe in a Triun (3 in 1) God. There are many many 'Christian' religions and not all of them believe the Bible supports the Trinity. In fact one of the main versus used to support the '3 in 1' God, 1 John 5:7 is spurious – it does not appear in the majority of the older Bible manuscripts.

    With that said, yes all three of these religions worship the same God – the God of Abraham. It is the many many ways in which all three worship that becomes the reason for such differences.

    September 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
    • Sandy

      Funny how god apparently started up human life far from where Abraham was. Quite the migration for Adam and company, hey!?!

      September 5, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
      • arosebyanyothername

        I believe that all three of these religions also believe that God created Adam and Eve also, Sandy 🙂 The 'God of Abraham' is a quote the author used several times that is why I referred to it.

        September 5, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
        • Sandy

          You believe in fiction, stupid.

          September 5, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
  15. AC

    Delude on faithiests. Your gawd is as real as santa claus, the tooth fairy or a unicorn. But if it makes you feel better...

    September 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
  16. Robert Brown

    Who created God?

    No one, God is eternal. God is infinite. He is.

    Exodus 3:14
    And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

    September 5, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • joe

      Who created God?

      No one, God is eternal. God is infinite. He is.
      Is this supposed to be some kind of revelation? Isn't a God immortal by definition?

      September 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        Yes, it is a revelation.

        September 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
        • sam stone

          sounds more like a delusion, robert

          September 6, 2013 at 11:51 am |
      • Athy

        Are there mortal gods? Semi-mortal gods maybe? You know, gods that live a long time, then die to be replaced by new ones? I kinda like that scenario. Basically, a religion that adapts as needed to the prevailing mores of society. I just made up a new religion!

        September 5, 2013 at 11:05 pm |
        • Britney

          This is how Christianity works Athy!!! The word of God is living....meaning that it can be applied to anyone, any generation, any race, any gender! God never changes but He knows ways to transcend any hurdle in order to get ahold of you 🙂

          September 6, 2013 at 12:09 am |
        • Athy

          Sort of an "omni" god, then? Like a god for all seasons? It seems the sillier the story, the more likely you religious dupes will believe it. What a load of bullshit!

          September 6, 2013 at 12:48 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Absolute bull but Britney is not an opinion that can be trusted after she lied and claimed she saw her imaginary friend heal third degree burns.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:31 am |
        • Ken

          Or, it could be that people will find any argument or way to spin things to convince themselves and others that God exists. Try reading Karen Armstrong's History of God for a detailed analysis of how God has evolved, or people's view of God has evolved if you prefer, over history.Either God is changing, or people's views of who and what God is has changed. If the later, why would you assume that people will not just go on changing their views of God to match current values?

          September 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
        • Britney

          Honestly yes I agree that "peoples" idea of God has changed. Ideas are shifted to fit God into a box. But this is not how it is supposed to be. People who shove God into whichever box fits their lifestyle the best are mistaken. If a person claims to be a Christian they need to realize that it isn't God Who is going to conform to their lifestyle, they must conform themselves to fit into HIS mold for them.

          I understand that this may not sound the way that most people want. They want a God who allows them to continue in their sin and then just forgive them for living like the devil, just before they walk through the pearly gates. Insane and sad. I really wish I were able to sit down and show you Who God really is...not the conformist jargon that is posted all over television and Tshirts. God is not difficult to understand. And it is not difficult to live for Him when you are really doing it.

          I want to tell you one more thing that I've experienced. Very early in my Christianity my church had a week long childrens church type thing at the park. We did songs, bible studies, games, free food, you know just kid stuff. This program was designed for smaller children...under 12 but on the second to last night we saw some some Jr. High aged kids playing basketball at the other side of the park and one of our young men went over and invited them for hotdogs and games. To make a long story short, by the end of the night we had 17 kids crying, praising God, speaking in tongues,jumping up and down in the spirit. 5 of these were 13 year old boys, 4 were 13-14 yr old girls. These children were all raised in the same Catholic church. These guys didn't even know about the holy ghost or speaking in tongues and they definitely didn't understand Who God is. Obviously I'm going to have comments about being a looney or a liar. But I am telling you right now 13 year old boys DO NOT weep in front of their friends unless something serious is going on. They were deeply touched by the presence of a might and powerful God.

          I challenge anyone who reads this to go into a private place and just start talking to God. Tell Him to show you Who He is and mean it!! He is real and He can show you how real He is. Email me @ cozybcreations@gmail.com if you are interested in knowing more or if you'd like for me to point you in the right direction to find a true church of Jesus Christ in your area.

          September 6, 2013 at 9:26 pm |
        • Ken

          What makes you think that your version of God is the actual one and not some "box" you've fitted him into yourself? You are satisfied with your view of God, yes? It suits you, does it not? How is that different from those you criticize?

          September 7, 2013 at 2:58 am |
    • AC

      You are Delusional.

      September 5, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        No, I'm really not & while it would be easy for me to reply in kind, I don't really think you are. You have reasons why you don't believe. I have reasons why I believe.

        September 5, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
        • sam stone

          the fact you have reasons does not mean you are not delusional, robert

          September 6, 2013 at 11:54 am |
        • Ken

          With all due respect, Robert, isn't it the point that delusional people don't know that they're deluded?

          September 6, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Who created the Universe?

      No one, the Universe is eternal. The universe is infinite. It is.

      Oh, and if you are going to say the Universe is not infinite, please prove it factoring in all the dark matter and dark energy which we know exists but can't see. If you can put three letters together and claim it can be infinite then I can put together 8 letters and claim the same.

      September 5, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
      • Lisa

        Excellent response. Robert Brown is not very bright.

        September 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I'm not very bright, but I know one who is. The light of the world.

          September 5, 2013 at 9:47 pm |
        • sam stone

          thanks for proving the point, robert

          September 6, 2013 at 11:56 am |
      • Robert Brown

        You may enjoy conversing with the lionlamb.

        September 5, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
      • Vic

        Dark Matter & Energy have not been proven to exist. They are only theories! Dark Matter is believed to be made of Weak Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs!) Those particles interact only through gravity and the Weak Force! Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector is used to encounter WIMPs but nothing yet!

        Finiteness or Infiniteness of the universe is one of the many mysteries where scientists run around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to figure out!

        Basic science posits that all physical matter is finite, the slightest motion in the universe (e.g. expansion, contraction, etc.) is change, and change means that the universe had a "beginning" since it is expanding, hence is temporal, hence is finite.

        Now, the problem is science CAN NOT figure out if the spatial size of the universe is finite or infinite! It is a logical conundrum. It has been one of the most complicated unsolved mysteries all along. Therefore, it became sort of a common practice to refer to the observable universe, that is made of physical matter, when speaking of the universe, and that it is finite.

        If you research this topic, you will find a vast amount of different opinions, and they pretty much revolve around this question: How can the universe have a limit in spatial size, and what is beyond that limit?!

        Many people think that it does not make sense for the universe to have a limit in spatial size, some think it is flat, some think it is spherical, and so on and so forth, but no one knows for sure.

        I myself is of the opinion that the universe is finite in material (which is already established by science as aforementioned) and in spatial size since I believe the Origin of it is outside its beginning, and that Origin is "holding it in suspension." I believe that Origin is metaphysical (non-physical) and non-temporal (without beginning nor end,) that is Eternal.

        I believe that Origin, aka First Cause, is God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.

        Here is a recent historical perspective of the complexity of the subject matter:

        September 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          No god has been proven to exist. Presuming a first cause, there is no evidence to suggest that that first cause was your god.

          September 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
        • Theresa

          Hey, Emperor Emphasis, knock it off with the random html emphasis. You look ridiculous.

          September 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
        • Athy

          Wow! HTML on steroids!

          September 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
        • Free Vic Translator

          If we don't know the answer yet, then "spooky physics" must be involved somehow.

          September 6, 2013 at 9:12 am |
        • dref from the inverse galaxy Moton

          That's right, Translator. Zod either is or isn't. There can be no other choice. There are also clues about the beginning in the Wizzle. Look at our finely tuned universe. If anything was just 1% different in its make-up, such as the amount of malangy-crust tthat we feed off of, then we would be goners. Surely, only the creator Zod could manage such a fine balance!

          September 6, 2013 at 9:22 am |
    • Ken

      Someone originally said that God is both eternal and infinite, but it's easy to just string words together. Since nobody has been able to observe, or even demonstrate this to any degree, I choose to ignore it as a baseless claim.

      September 6, 2013 at 8:33 am |
    • Shadowflash1522

      And if you also posit that "Everything must have a creator, therefore God exists", you have committed a serious logical error. Allow me to simplify:

      You propose a statement, A. In this case, A = "Everything must have a creator." Since there's obviously a lot of semantic confusion on this blog, we'll define everything as, well, everything–all the things you can possibly imagine, and even those you can't, including all the matter and energy in the universe, all that is constructed thereof, and all that can affect such. Everything. No exceptions. If it exists, it is included in "everything". That's the definition. If you challenge that assertion, stop reading now.

      In the same breath, you posit another statement "God is eternal, and has no creator." In other words, not A.

      A and not A absolutely CANNOT be true simultaneously. It doesn't matter what A is. Today cannot be both Friday and not Friday at the same time. It is logically impossible–it defies the very definition of the word "Friday" and the word "not". In order for today to be both Friday and not Friday at the same time, some other condition(s) must be imposed. For example, it may be Friday here in the U.S., but in China at this moment it has moved on to being Saturday (not Friday). In your case, we would have to be talking about completely separate universes in order for God to both need and not need a creator at the same time.

      If we're talking about different universes, then you haven't made a point–you've simply stated two unrelated possibilities. If we're talking about the same universe, then you can conclude anything you like from that argument. If I want to argue that today is Friday and today is not Friday therefore pink fluffy unicorns are dancing on my desktop, I can legitimately do so.

      This isn't about theology. It's about basic logic used to conduct arguments (rational or otherwise) and have conversations. If you can't agree on a logic framework, how can you have a conversation?

      September 6, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • sam stone

      man created god

      why is that so hard for you to grasp?

      September 6, 2013 at 11:49 am |
  17. frankie

    YES ! They all worship the same demon.

    September 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
  18. Bob

    Some more 'favorites' from Ron's Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, since he's insisting on dumping his awful bible bile on us by the truckload today:

    Numbers 31:17-18
    17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
    18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

    Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    Leviticus 25
    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
    45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
    46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

    Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

    And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

    So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

    September 5, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.