 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 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 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
That Billboard could not have come at a better time 😉
The remains at Dmanisi are thought to be early forms of H.omo erectus, the first of our relatives to have body proportions like a modern human, throwing at the evolutionists tale!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZeuixIgV-LQ
Proof of Fish->Amphibian->Reptile->Mammal evolution
Would you like that pizza cut into 6 slices or 12?
Creationist claims that rest solely on the moldy creation myths of a degenerate desert tribe get no support from me.
Plenty of god out there aside from the murderous genocidal diety of the jews.
Those atheists who focus on christianity as their sole straw man are simply boring.
EXACTLY = Ancient Aliens
Only children and the misinformed believe in a god.
In the absence of god all atheism does is create a new religion that requires a greater leap of faith in which to believe (social marxism aka progressivism) and denies the existence of freedom and free will.
I recommend you read Edmund Burke, Albert Hoyt Hobbs, Roger Scruton, and Thomas Szasz.
Atheism has nothing to do with society. It is an answer to a single question.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not playing baseball is a sport.
Atheism is not a religion. How can you base a religion on not believing something? Do I get down on my knees and pray to nothing, or get together on a particular day to go over a passage in some very conflicted "scripture"? If I prayed to Zeus would I be a theist in your mind, and more or less okay because I got religion, in your eyes? Or would you consider me a nut job.
2 names:
Long Island Medium and John Roberts. Watch and learn...then R E P E N T.
The Long Island Medium? You mean the Long Island Cold Reader?
Tha's correct I can't watch it it freaks me out too much.....and it's not John Roberts it's John EDWARD everyone (sorry)....his show Crossing Over is C R A Z Y true. Be forwarened Mr & Mrs Atheist. And GOOD LUCK.
It freaks you out that cold reading, a technique that has been used by psychics and mediums for centuries, works?
Both the LIM and John Edwards do the same thing. They throw out general statements to a large group of people surveying body language and verbal cues to determine if something hits, then they narrow those hits in using high probably statements quickly jumping on anything that is a hit and ignoring anything that would miss.
They both have staffers that case the crowd before the show eavesdropping on conversations and taking notes to supplement their basic techniques as well.
Nothing mystical or mysterious about it at all. It's simple psychology.
J-man you are a bit naive....I'm 47 so I'm probably older than you and have neen around and seen more stuff. NO WAY those psychics are talking in general terms...NO WAY...they get too specific....to detailed.....I can't even watch it....
Ok I gotta get back to work.....but i AM DEFINETLY going back to mass this weekend after talking with all you non-belivers.
So THANK YOU!
Hey MattinDC.. your not very bright are you? I always wonder how people like John Edwards and the Long Island "Medium" have any sort of following, but then I realize a lot of naive, dopey, ignorant people like you exist and it makes sense.
In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.
–Is there an alternative, logical explanation to who created humans?
God created humans!
The Gods the Jews spoke of in the bible were probably Aliens. Look up the "Manna Machine". When Jesus made bread out of thin air........just watch Ancient Aliens......R E P E N T.
Just say "Jesus is my Saviour" 10X fast and you'll be all set!
Ah, so by your logic Xmas, if a lot of people believe something, then that makes it true? So the world really was flat at the time the bible was written?
"Ah, so by your logic Xmas, if a lot of people believe something, then that makes it true? So the world really was flat at the time the bible was written?"
No, it doesn't make it true. And the fact that many atheists on this website believe that a lot of people in the past believed the earth was flat doesn't make it true. Atheists really need to stop spreading that lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth
Great posts from you!
Are you observing some of your posts/ by Christians being deleted? Looks like some character is abusing the 'report abuse' button, because it has too much time on its hands.
The Bible says the earth is a flat circle or else has corners (as usual, take your pick from the Bible). Both are WRONG.
A circle is FLAT. A sphere has NO CORNERS.
AIGG,
Yeah, I noticed that. I guess they don't like to have their arguments refuted.
You're right. I guess when a person is unable to provide a valuable counter the easy way out is to remove your post.
Your posts are great and wanted to let you know, always stop to read your comments, very compelling ! 🙂
God bless!
A great number of posts have been deleted, I'm assuming by those who are insecure in their personal faith.
A person of "true faith" does not fear/hate the opinions of strangers enough to stifle freedom of expression.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
If everyone on this planet but me believed that they sun orbitted the Earth, it wouldn't make it true.
Exactly. And if everyone believed in molecules-to-man evolution, that doesn't make it true.
90 percent of all Ancient Egyptians surveyed believe that the god Ra moves the sun though the sky in his boat!
And I always thought it was a Chevy.
It all sounds childish if you ask me... I'm talking about both sides... and quite a waste of money on both sides as well.
This billboard is supposed to upset me? How? It is just a statement of their opinion without substantiating facts. I think it is funny.
Well, it does upset. Or rather the amount of tax money that Answers In Genesis receives from the state I lived in for 30 years does.
One has to commend the evolutionists for their steadfast "faith" in things unseen, unproven and untestable. 😉
One has to be saddened by the depth of your ignorance of science. Let's look at the evidence of what happens when religion and society deny science. Although Muslims represent a large proportion of the population they produce little science because of their religious doctrine, but it wasn't always that way. For 300 years Muslim Science had a golden age and produced great science...until religion got the better of them.
"Decline in science resulted ...In particular, the great theologian Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111) used the tools of the philosophers to undermine philosophical and scientific inquiry."
The same thing is happening in the United States.
Worth a read on the Middle East Forum:
"Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science?"
by Aaron Segal
Middle East Quarterly
June 1996, pp. 61-70
NO...the Muslim religion is simply a MALE TOOL to keep women barefoot, undeerage and pregnant.
While most religion is misogynistic by nature, your comment doesn't speak to the poison of creationism that the uniquely US fundamentalist Christian view of creationism is damaging to US Society. Fundamental religious belief regardless of the doctrine opposes science, discovery and free thought. Fundamental beliefs that oppose science are a darkness; pervasive, divisive, bigoted and narrow. They discourage critical thinking skills, investigation and discovery. They are likely to believe that public opinion has some impact on reality. They are a huge non-taxable industry where the gullible are manipulated for the sake of profit and political control. They oppose education because knowledge is the enemy of ignorance that will free those otherwise enslaved to a belief system that relies on denial of evidence by appeal to emotion.
Blah blah blah, 2 names:
John Roberts and the Long Island Medium...modern day prophets.
R E P E N T
Just say: Jesus is my saviour 10X! (Once is all it takes actually)
GO REDskins beat da bears!
C'mon MattinDC, bust a neuron, share an original thought. In studies prayer has shown to be ineffective.
Based upon prayer and the answers you've gotten what is your divine revelation of the outcome of the Redskins game. I could use science and statistics to make predictions, but that tiny voice within you that really isn't there won't give you a clue as to outcomes. Nor will your prayers and those of many others influence the outcome of a single play.
Hey Z-man,
I've been dead BROKE more than a few times.....so I asked GOD to help me and BAM within 24 hrs money has arrived in various forms. THis has happened at least 5x in my life. I have NO choice bbut to accept his existence.
NO CHOICE. I OWE him.
GO REDSKINS beat da bears!
If faith works for you then by all means stick with it. Many find it a source of comfort. That's okay with me. Life is tough. Enlist all the support you can, even if it's from an invisible friend.
I have a cat instead.
But I also employ 12 packs of Natural Ice when times get especially rough....$8.99 a 12 pack!
I drink a LOT of coffee and Diet Pepsi. Unlike when I was younger, just looking at a beer gives me a hangover.
Haha...10-4!
I'm single, no kids and go out alot.
So basically, Matt, god is your ATM.
hahaha! Aparently SO...only in DESPERATE times which seems appropriate. The key thing here is I pray for OTHER people always...so when I ask for help...CHA CHING! He DELIVERS.
How do Muslims keep their women underage? Don't Muslim women have birthdays just like everyone else?
Loser Doobz: Get a penci and take notes: They force young girls to marry YOUNG and they die early = keep em young.
It was a joke, stupid.
moron, read a book or seven
Nonsense. This isn't a taunt and scientists everywhere have been waiting for these people to provide actual evidence of what they claim. It's silly, childish nonsense. They can put whatever they want on a billboard. They can claim a high % of people believing in it... none of that makes it true.
And I would love for them to actually pick up the gauntlet and try to slap someone with it. They've invited scientists there a couple of times since they opened and every single one of them have left laughing. So really, all they did was waste money on a billboard because they are butthurt. While they could have been spending that money on what their belief system says to spend it on... homeless, widows, orphans, etc. But we don't see them doing that. *shrug* Can't take them or their beliefs seriously when they don't even follow them.
Life without faith iin God is an empty abyss of turmoil and desire.
GO SKINS beat da bears!
"Life without faith iin God is an empty abyss of turmoil and desire."
No, it isn't. That's a lie that christians love to repeat.
IWell said, Robin.
Is there an intelligent man or women in the world who now believes in the Garden of Eden story?
If you find such a person, strike him in the forehead and listen for the echo. Something is for rent.
R. G.. Ingersoll
Well poor little unenlightened Doris Green,
Archeoligists believe they HAVE FOUND your elusive GOE. (Garden of Eden) Look it up located near the base of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
R E P E N T
@MattinDC
How do they go about confirming that it was actually the Garden of Eden? Did they come across a talking snake?
I'd love to see the scientific article about it.
Doris and Robin;
I'm sure you're aware that YT has many videos of scientists/atheists visiting and commenting on creation museums, (including Dawkins), that are fun to watch. Don't know how to insert YT videos yet, but take a look at Lawrence Krauss at Creation Museum Protest.
For me, it's no contest. I have felt the presence of G-d since I was a little boy. We cannot look to the scientific method to provide overwhelming proof of that which, by definition, is beyond time and space.
When an atheist denies God, he is denying his very heart and soul.
That's, quite simply, false. Denying something that doesn't exist has no effect on ones heart and soul. As it typical you start with a false an unproven premise, that a god exists. God is simply a man-made invention created for political power and control.
I agree whole heartedly John.
There is no evidence of a soul. Spirituality; that sense of awe and wonder that many humans including atheists experience is the result of personality, temperament and disposition. This can be measured as neurological activity in the brain.
My personality dictates that I am a deeply spiritual person, and I study with awe and wonder all of the aspects of the natural world as revealed by science. I am an atheist and a scientist and it is this sense of awe and wonder that motivates me to discover, learn and cherish the fragile mortal life of humans and other creatures because it is transient.
Science unites all of humanity by a single methodology of dynamic discovery of the natural "truths" of reality. The understanding is dynamic, and ever improving. There is no authority in science other than peer review.
Religious doctrine is dogmatic, has absolutes, authorities, and serves to segregate, separate and divide, and the belief in a divine authority without evidence to support that belief is used to justify the most inhumane of behaviors of humanity such as torture and murder. Religion sews the seeds of hatred, science sews the seeds of understanding.
No evidence?
Watch Long Island Medium or John Edward Crossing Over. And LEARN.
It's NEVER too late people!Jesus LOVES you!
Go REDSKINS! beat da bears!
The technique employed is called "cold reading."
But that's okay. I affirm your right to enjoy what you want to enjoy. I enjoy science because I understand it and can appreciate the subtleties.
From this I derive my sense of awe and wonder at the world around me. Go Redskins!
Thanks for your support! I also enjoy 12 packs of Natural Ice ($8.99 in DC) i sneak 2 cans into every Redskins game. AND they frisk you! (think Jesus calls that stealing from Dan Snyder?) I save $18 (beers are $9 a piece!)
By the time you read this the NSA has probably already put your photo on all the stadium entrances. Use caution; in today's society authority isn't as forgiving as it used to be.
hahaha....nice! My dad retired from NSA!! (also a Retired Capt, USN)
and DEVOUT Catholic...way more than me.
Wow, you fall for con jobs pretty easy old man. There's classes you can take that will teach you to employ "cold reads" on people just like they do. You can be a prophet, too! All it takes is $300 and two hours a day for two weeks.
Not really, John. I've simply learned to recognize my own emotions for what they are: my own emotions. Then, I admitted to myself that attributing these emotions to any "higher power" was extremely egotistical, vain and unrealistic. It wasn't "denying my very heart and soul". It was growing up.
poor, poor, little Taullah.....honey, to know love is to know the face of GOD. I will pray for you. It's NEVER too late.
good luck with THAT...me? I'd rather be SAFE than SORRY for eternity........so, I'm on the side of CAUTION.
I'm sure god just pointed his finger and bam we have earth bam we have trees ...hmmm maybe ill make a moon bam there is a moon how about a lake ? etc etc its all a bunch of bull being a creationist........ Six days to make earth lol and w.e else he pointed his finger to make
With all that alleged power, why 6 days? Why not 6 hours, or 6 minutes, or 6 seconds, or 6 nanoseconds?
I believe in God and understand , because of a place called Medjugorje. In the words of Thomas Aquinas "To people who have faith , no elanation is needed, To people who have no faith no explanation is possible"
God has asked thru his son to believe and as he said to Thomas who refused to believe "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe". As Saint Paul said (who once persecuted the christians) "If the lord has not risen , then our preaching is in vain). Man's problem is lack of faith and too much arrogance.
Well said friend in Christ. Bravo.
Vaya Con Dios sinners!
Bullsh!t! If man has a problem, it is the inability to shed childish beliefs.
Two names as evidence:
Long Island Medium & John Roberts both now famous both now living lightining rods for the Holy Sprit.
R E P E N T
Another arrogant atheist. You guys are as arrogant as they come. Repent and come to Jesus christ. You don't have to give up dedication to science to do that.
When we look to the great thinkers of the past we must remember the lack of information they had available during their lives. If born today Thomas Aquinas would probably have been a physicist. Divine revelation never introduced soap and water or the concept of the germ theory of disease. Divine revelation of these two concepts would have done more to ease the suffering of humanity than all of the philosophies, mythologies, and religions of man combined.
Nye is simply being an idiot. There are a ton of Engineers that are creationists, and they build things. A lot of things.
Which proves...exactly nothing.
"There are a ton of Engineers that are creationists, and they build things. "
I'm always amazed at this one. Why can't people see the problem!?
People believe all kinds of things, and do all kinds of work which is not in any way connected to or enabled by what they believe.
If an engineer or scientist who believed something extraordinary was able to bring her expertise into showing the reason for such belief, THEN it would matter. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of compartmentalization.
Police officers – sworn to uphold the law – engage in criminal activity. Presidents of countries are thieves . Doctors are killers.
And people who are rational in everyday life make exceptions for beliefs they are emotionally attached to.
Belief in god(s) and prayer won't get you to the moon or build a bridge. Indeed the religious are inclined to throw up their hands when confronted by a difficult problem...even Newton, in the many body problem of planetary orbits. He said something like the understanding of planetary orbits is beyond the understanding of man, only god knows. Newton had the ability to press forward but he gave up. Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace took up the challenge and using the tools of calculus that Newton/Leibniz had developed solved the many body problem. Today some Fundamentalist Christians don't base their belief on faith but rather use an argument of "god of the gaps" when pointing to cosmology, evolution or abiogenesis. More sophisticated religious doctrines rely on faith and faith alone and do not argue science-this is the only "honest" proposition as these doctrines do not seek to refute scientific evidence found in nature.
The answersingenesis.org site is very amusing. It's an excellent example of the intellectual gymnastics fundamental theists put themselves through to explain their religion.
there are no gods, no demons, no witches, no unicorns, no deities, no sub-deities, no devils, no angels, no Krakons, no centaurs, no god, no allah, no heaven, no hell, no after life, no Human soul, no flat-Earth, no magic, no faeries, no b.s......get it??!!
I agree completely, I just never knew how to word it so eloquently before 🙂
Wish the theists would just stop all the make believe nonsense. Really, even a child that wasn't indoctrinated into these fallacies of lies would be able to tell that these mythologies are entirely false??!!
Then how do you explain the creation of our universe? Something had to start all of this.
Except that a magical being is nothing more that wishful thinking and lazy to boot. The deeper science digs into to first causes the less likely it is that it had anything to do magic.
It all started with lots and lots of hydrogen. . .
Refuted by theists as a "god of the gas" argument.
Watch Long Island Medium.....or John Roberts tons of evidence of dead sprits all aroud us.
You're joking, right? Only the most gullible believe those stories. Their purpose is singular...to make money and that's done by bamboozling the unwary.
Not joking.....I'm the SUPER doubter about the afterlife but watching those mediums bring up information that ONLY is privy to the survivors and the deceased is way TOO provactive to simply dismiss. I feel these people are put on this earth
to convert the naysayers....convert? more like SAVE.
All you have to say is "Jesus is MY saviour" and you can join the club.
Hey, Matt, you seem to be kind of naive. Leading questions and the ability to read body language are not proof of supernatural ability.
How did you become the authority on what exists or does not exist in this universe (other universes?) and on every possible planet?
Does the fact that a lot (majority?) of Americans believe in God demonstrate that he exists?
Put a rabbit in a box. Now, vote on the gender of the rabbit. If more people believe the rabbit is a male, then is that a fact?
I know this God question is an example of Argumentum ad populum , but is it also an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc and an existential fallacy?
While I understand and appreciate your point, you're starting to get into schrodinger's cat territory here. . .
I love your point. It's one of my favorites.
There's a subtle shift in the wording that's reported that has me confused. For all the time up until about two years ago, the 'creationists' were saying the earth was less than 6,000 years old. Absolutely. Positively. In the bible.
How come it's reported now that they believe it's less than 10,000 years old? Does that sound somehow better? Was the infallible text before incorrect?
Actually, the text does not give any specific number. A couple hundred years ago a guy added up a bunch of stuff in the bible (including "generations?!?!" lol) and came up with a number close to 6,000 years. Match that up with the six days of creation, and a thousand years of "millennial reign" as a "Sabbath," and you get a nice, neat package with a bow on top. But there are no hard numbers in the bible for any of it. All guess work.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
So why were they using that hard and fast number 6,000 before and 10,000 now? Since there's no real number, how about 4.6 billion years old? They shouldn't have an issue with that and then they can use both the bible and science.
I'm not certain but I think it is just a way of encompassing all Young Earth creationists. Some say "around 6,000" others say more. "Less than 10,000" is just a catch-all.
there's no set figure in the Scriptures. The Darwinians throw around millions of years like Congress does trillions of dollars, and you are worried about a 6,000 to 10,000 estimate?
What is a Darwinian? In science there are no authorities as in religions. When considering the age of the Earth, young Earth Creationists are only wrong by a factor of a million to one. By the same measure the width of the United States is eight yards.
There are no absolutes in science, but there is correct and incorrect. Assuming you had a yard stick you could quickly determine the United States is more than eight yards wide. Science is not a silly matter of opinion when educating young people. Science is the method of discovery and inquiry of nature that comes closest to "true" objective understanding of nature. If a doctrine is based upon denial of well understood fact, it is based upon falsehood and lies, and this harmful to members of society to adhere to such doctrine.
God exists. I know for a fact He does.
Do we finally get to see your evidence?
We have seen it. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it any less credible.
Of course it makes it less credible. Evidence is only as good as its visibility. God is invisible and undetectable, and therefore, irrelevant. Even if he does exist, it doesn't matter, because there's no way to verify it.
It doesn't make my belief in God any less if 2 guys who spend a lot of time on religious blogs named "In Santa We Trust" and "Cpt. Obvious" don't believe in God.
God is real, available and detectable. And is very relevant. He does exist. Seek humility and ask God for the evidence.
Why lie, AE?
If god was detectable, we wouldn't be arguing about it. You cannot make one measurement, anytime, anywhere, that will demonstrate the existence of any god of any believer.
I honestly believe in God. I'm not lying.
God's evidence for His existence is greater than a couple atheist's disbelief. If you don't believe and want to we can discuss ways people have found God.
There are 40,000 different Christian religions with different beliefs about different gods that share the same names.
What evidence? Which god?
Show me a god or religion that doesn't require faith, but is based in evidence that all humanity can test in a lab and agree upon.
That claim wouldn't make in in a court of law, much less withstand scientific scrutiny.
You ask God, He gives His evidence.
There are people that serve in courts of law that believe in God. There are brilliant, scientific minds that believe in God.
. . and here we have more of this nebulous brainwashed drivel. It's hilarious to me that people are STILL falling for a 2000+ year old con job.
Faith = belief without any evidence. So, no evidence needed.
Faith, for me, is like the primary definition. Complete trust and confidence in something or someone. I have trust and confidence in God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
What AE and other delusionals are saying is that you have to believe to believe. You have to ask the very (unproven) supernatural being you doubt exists for proof of their existence. Talk about circular logic and a slippery slope to mental illness! And of course, trust and confidence cannot turn horse sh!t into fact, no matter how much time you spent on your knees and/or chattering with your invisible (unproven) friend.
Which God? There are a lot of different ones depending on your culture.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I'm sure you have noticed that as we have increased our ability to record facts the number of alleged miracles has decreased. I suspect the amount of child abuse has decreased as well due to the same capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg&feature=player_detailpage
Any evidence of a god?
Is there any evidence of God? Question for you: If God showed himself to you, would you then believe? If He showed His power, and you knew, for certain He was God, would you bend your knee to him, for fear or knowing you might become a toasted marshmallow? Would you THEN do what He asks? And would you think you still have the FREE WILL to choose your own path, or that you don't have any free will at all, because you now know He does exist?
Any god you can understand is no god at all. He's just a man. That's the "god" you're looking for, and seeking evidence from.
Our God is one who asks little, gives much, and provides a reward when the time comes. But it requires a leap of faith for all. Because if "knowledge" of His being were there for all to see, there would be no "free will".
TJ,
According to the legend, even that schlump Thomas was given proof. I have no need to be "more blessed" than Thomas.
So you know all this about your god and yet we cannot know god. The creation myths are not supported by any evidence and are contradicted by the evidence we do have; the creation myths are the foundation of a religion, i.e. they establish that god's credentials, so clearly the personal god(s) of religion are man-made.
Wouldn't it have been easier just to write "no"?
TJ: Evidence is seen as that which can be measured to a degree of mathematical confidence as being accurate by anyone with the tools to perform the measurement. Evidence has little to do with what goes on in your head, a result of personal neurological activity (or lack thereof) in a brain. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Citing "That which is beyond human understanding..." is a cop out. Who understands quantum physics? In a sense the non-intuitive nature of the math makes the science difficult to "understand" , but plenty of us can do the math and find meaningful results and apply those results to engineering problems. Your god gives nothing that can be demonstrated in terms of evidence, and therefore is not real. Religion is the product of limited imagination for unsophisticated closed minds that are easily satisfied with a single ignorant answer to any difficult question: "god did it."
@DeeDeeMouse: I have no idea what "Thomas" you're speaking about, unless you mean the Apostle Thomas. I made no reference to him, so your point is moot and trivial, at best. In short... you have NO point.
@Santa: Your science provides evidence? You mean the same science that thought the world "round", and caffeine "dangerous, then "not dangerous", then dangerous, then not, then again, and on and on? The same science that tells us how life evolved, yet cannot cure something as simple as Herpes, AIDS, or Cancer, or even how many bodily conditions occur? C'mon... the "science" you speak of is in its womb, yet to be born. Yet you laud it as "evidence" of evolution, when, if you were studied at all, you'd know there is great doubt in the scientific community regarding carbon dating, evolution, and exactly HOW animate matter was created from inanimate matter??? Your "evidence" is highly suspect, at BEST, all while being closed-minded and tunnel-visioned, just like those who subscribe to it as being the end-all and know-all regarding life in our universe.
@Zampaz: Sorry, but your cheap and infantile ad hominem attack willl be left unanswered, as the majority of what you had to say really says nothing I haven't already address in another post, below this one.
You too also speak of evidence, yet fail to realize that the evidence provided is relative to this day, and nothing more. Nor did you answer the questions I posed, except in a beat-around-the-bush manner. Sure, science gives us some engineering feats, no doubt. But to say our "science" is the know-all and end-all of knowledge, especially on a universal basis is foolish at best, and otherwise infantile.
You've presented nothing I haven't already addressed, nor offered any new insights on this subject, other than the status quo nonsense that agnostics keep parroting. That said, have a nice day.
TJ,
"If God showed himself to you, would you then believe?"
That is a very pertinent segue to the legend of Thomas the Doubter. It's not surprising that you don't see the point, however.
Edit: The legend of Thomas is the segue to your statement... in case you want to pick on the mix-up there.
@DeeDeeMouse: And yet you still fail to answer the question, or address the scientific issues I posted below, as Zampaz has also done, albeit quite astutely. I find it ironic that the atheists in the audience, when called out on the rug to discuss scientific topics, are unprepared and unable to discuss those topics in an intelligent matter, or simply avoid simple questions as you have done.
You don't mind shooting down the beliefs of others with your hyperbole, insults, degrading comments, etc, but you don't like it when someone says "let's discuss this intelligently in a scientific manner". That speaks more to your (lack of) character and integrity, than it does to anything else. Have a nice day anyway... there's no intelligent discussion to be had here... at least nothing deeper or clears than a nickel-deep mud puddle.
TJ
"You don't mind shooting down the beliefs of others with your hyperbole, insults, degrading comments, etc"
Based on your comments to me, is this quote from your autobiography?
TJ
There is evidence – DNA, evolution, Big Bang, etc which contradicts your creation myth; what evidence do you have for creationism apart from you cannot/will not accept modern knowledge?
You believe in a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being that created the universe and all in it, yet the same god cannot cure something as simple as Herpes, AIDS, or Cancer, or even how many bodily conditions occur?
If I were shown evidence that there were a god, I would certainly believe that he existed. I would never get on my knees and worship a being that threw a temper tantrum and drowned the world because they weren't acting like he wanted.
The Christian god is the most unpleasant being I've ever had the displeasure to read about. I wouldn't worship him if I was certain he existed. He doesn't, and isn't that a truly wonderful thing?
I am a believer in God, and I also believe man should not be trying to tell God how he created anything. God laid the proof out all around us there is no God evolution or atheist evolution, there is simply evolution it is a fact. Genesis was written by men, divinely inspired but still by men in terms they could understand. To deny facts is just silly, we know how old the earth is, we can trace the evolution of life from fossil records. Instead of wasting money that could be used to help people on silly billboards, these so called creationists ought to consider their presumption to tell God how He did something rather than listening to what he is telling them.
There is no proof that any god exists. Evolution is supported by fossil and DNA evidence and can be directly observed in a lab setting.
Creationism is a pseudoscience that deliberately misinterprets fact in order to create false support for religious claims. Simply put, creationists are lying liars who lie.
Actually, there is evidence, to those He has provided it to.
But let's entertain you for a moment here, and the idea of the proof you believe you need might exist. Can you prove God does NOT exist? Of course not. But because you're an agnostic I will present some ideas to you. (There is no such thing as a true atheist, as an atheist would need to provide EVIDENCE there is no God. Otherwise, you cannot say God does not exist. You only believe He does not exist, and hence, atheism becomes a "religion" unto itself.)
So, I'm guessing you believe man is the most intelligent being in the universe. That there is no chance there are other lifeforms more intelligent than us. Do you know how foolish that idea is? With over 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (estimated) in the universe, you are saying there are no other stars that have life more intelligent than ours? C'mon... even using the One-Percent theory would allow for thousands of planets with life considerably more intelligent and advanced than ours. You with me here? I mean, you do understand what I'm talking about, correct?
Good, then we can move onto the Fermi Paradox, the Drake Equation, Rare Earth Hypothesis, Metazoan life forms, Copernican Principle (principle of mediocrity), and so on. I mean, you and I can have an intelligent discussion regarding evolution, the theories and principles I mention above, God, and the laws of probability HE DOES EXIST, correct???
You ARE, after all, the most intelligent life form in the universe, correct? Far above every other living thing on this planet too, I'll bet. What's that you say? You're not, at least not on this planet? Wait, then you could say that with regards to the universe then, too, correct?
TJ
"Actually, there is evidence, to those He has provided it to.".
Then you proceeded to offer NONE.
" (There is no such thing as a true atheist, as an atheist would need to provide EVIDENCE there is no God. Otherwise, you cannot say God does not exist. You only believe He does not exist, and hence, atheism becomes a "religion" unto itself.)"
Pointless. An atheist believes there is no God. Just like believers, they have NO proof.
"I'm guessing you believe man is the most intelligent being in the universe. That there is no chance there are other lifeforms more intelligent than us"
No one but you is claiming that here. Stick to what is being discussed.
@Observer: You post is nothing more than a rehash. Instead of answering my post with something intelligent, you simply come off with the same nonsense so many of your agnostic buddies come off with. And I'm sorry, but you are wrong: True atheism does not exist, no matter what you call yourself. You're agnostic. And with all respect, I suggest you do some research before continuing to make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. By the way, you're ready to discuss (intelligently) those theories and principles I mentioned abouve, correct? Ah, I didn't think so, or you'd have done so.
Keep on thinking the world is flat, that man will never fly, and 640Kb is enough for everyone. It serves you well.
Making a claim, any claim, it's reasonable to expect a person making the claim to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
In science there is a specific methodology for making and substantiating claims that can be refuted by the same methodology.
You claim there is direct evidence (available to a select few) to support a claim but you provide no evidence and go on to make more unsubstantiated claims. You claim 7E22 stars...according to ESA there are between 10E21 and 10E24 stars. Then you throw out a number for a probability of life on other planets...a number which is based on a lot of unverifiable assumptions. But you still have done nothing to support your claim.
@ Zampaz: Sorry, but you're wrong. However, you do not address the Fermi Paradox, Copernican theory, Rare Earth Principle, or the others I've mentioned, to wit I can only say speaking to you is like Einstein speaking to a chimp. It will not matter what I say to you, because you're unable to understand even the plainest request to dicuss those theories, principles, etc. that I laid down before you. I don't argue with primates, which is exactly how you appear in this convo, with your unwillingness to discuss those scientific issues I put before you. End of conversation, have a nice day.
@TJ; Simply provide repeatable demonstrable scientific evidence to support your position that a deity exists.
Frankly the opinions you express emphasize the depth of your ignorance and lack of understanding of science.
Faith-belief without evidence, justifies any position, excludes prediction, verification and refutation. Science is based in evidence, provides a means of prediction and is verifiable or refutable through a specific methodology.
TJ,
"True atheism does not exist, no matter what you call yourself. You're agnostic. And with all respect, I suggest you do some research before continuing to make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have."
Speaking of making a BIG FOOL of yourself, here's the definition of atheism: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Unless you are so delusional that you think you can read the mind of every atheist and know they don't BELIEVE that, you are just making a bigger fool of yourself. Keep burying yourself deeper and deeper.
@ Observer: Sorry, but that's the "textbook" definition. Is the dictionary where you learned to "love" too? Oh wait, love doesn't exist, because there is no proof that it exists... in a "MANNER OF SPEAKING" (are you familiar with that phrase?)
Sorry, but I don't have the link that would provide you the explanation regarding why atheists do not exist, and only agnostics do (which fit into the text-book def of atheism). But you are wrong. And that's okay, there's nothing wrong or shameful in being as wrong as you are. I've not made a fool of myself at all. I'm sure there are some educated and studied people out there who know precisely what I'm referring to. Have a nice day. Last word is yours, if you like.
TJ
"Sorry, but that's the "textbook" definition".
Lol. That's what the DICTIONARY says. Haven't you used one or can't figure out how to?
"I've not made a fool of myself at all."
Good one. You are clueless about the definition of a common word that you are using, but think that doesn't make you look like a fool.
It sounds like you may be running away now. I certainly understand why.
@tallulah13
"There is no proof that any god exists."
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Ctrygrl: "I am a believer in God, and I also believe man should not be trying to tell God how he created anything...there is simply evolution it is a fact. Genesis was written by men..."
Oh, well said! I am an (agnostic) Atheist, a scientist, but I understand "faith" and I support your right to have faith.
Big problems arise when people deny what we observe in reality through science because to deny science is to deny the closest thing to "true" understanding of nature that all of humanity can test and agree upon. If a religious doctrine does not support itself by faith alone, but rather by denial of what we understand to be "truth" based in evidence, then that doctrine is false to the core. Many scientists have faith in a higher power and are able to distinguish matters of faith verses matters of science. I am an atheist because I felt that "faith" was an internal inconsistency and conflicted with my goal of understanding nature through scientific discovery. If there is deity it will be discovered by way of science, not in spite of it.
@Ctrygrl,
Well said!
While I disagree on the god aspect, the rest is an entirely reasonable approach.
@Ctrygrl
Bang on.
The world doesn't work how we want it to work. The world is. We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings. God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
There actually is no conflict between science and religion, if only everyone understood what the scriptures are really saying. The Hebrew word in Genesis for "created" implies putting something together from existing materials. Just like when one of us "creates" something, it does not come out of a void. Some of the artifacts we find now could very well have come from another very ancient time and/or another world that was "created" for a specific purpose. When our current earth ceases to exist in the form we now know it (it may not happen soon, but it will happen), the materials may very well be used in another new world. And the new inhabitants will likely find some very strange artifacts and wonder about them, just as we do now.
When Elijah was taken away in a "chariot of fire" in the Old Testament, there was no word in the language for flight vehicles (airplanes, rockets, whatever) that emitted some sort of combustion or heat when taking off. Very likely Elijah was taken away by some beings (that may have been at some level of control over our existence and monitoring us) that had advanced vehicles of some sort. How could we be so arrogant and stupid as to suppose we are the only sentient beings in our galaxy, let alone all the galaxies of the universe?
The concept of continuing to live after your body dies is not necessarily a fictional or mythical concept either. Moving from one form of existence to another, then returning to take up an improved impervious form of a flesh and bone body is not at all inconceivable. It is only foreign to our current limited view of the universe, and what we think is observable fact.
The bottom line, if you understand the basis of all God-centered religions is that this life is the time to learn how to create love, not hate, and how to use various resources in an ethical and righteous way. This means we should not only not cause harm for our own selfish gain (polluting, legal thievery, etc.), but we should reach out and try to make life better for the less fortunate that are sharing this existence with us. Seeing how we handle it during this life will most likely be the starting point for how far or how quickly we will be allowed to advance to new stages of responsibility in our next phases of existence. "Failure" at various levels will require some retraining before we can move forward. Or you may just become the helpers and servants of those who advance to the highest positions (and you will probably be very happy to do that, because it will be so much better than our here and now). There is no reason each one of could not become a god that creates and peoples worlds. So far we have not determined that the universe is finite in any way. There is enough room for all of us, and everyone else we have never known. But only the ones who will choose to do it the right way (not necessarily determined by us, but by our monitors) will be allowed to perform and advance the most important tasks.
Jerry,
"There actually is no conflict between science and religion"
Of course. People really do turn into salt. The moon and the sun stopped still for a day. Noah's ark contained millions of animals flown in from all over the world along with months and months of food for them. Of course.
Professor Tresmontant, lecturer on the philosophy of science at the Sorbonne in Paris, stated:
“Those who find no place for God in their philosophy must be prepared to affirm that mindless,
inanimate matter has been able to organize itself, to become animated, and to endow itself with
consciousness and thought . . . Matter must be credited with all the attributes that theologians
specify as belonging to God, including supreme intelligence, creative power and eternal, autonomous existence . . .
Even if by the great act of faith you accept the theory that the first large molecule was created by a chance
collision of the right atoms under the right circ.umstances . . . The operations of chance would have to be
brought in again at each stage to account for the development of each new organ . . . If you go on attributing
to chance results that in fact are radically contradictory to the laws of probability,
you find that you are in effect spelling chance with a capital letter, and using it as a synonym for God.”
To our atheist friends:
Your faith is in "Chance",
Thank God that "Chance doesn't create life!
Well said!
This "design" kind of works, but it sure could be better. Mess-ups happen all the time. This "God" character hardly gets a passing grade.
Chance does create life and chance can take it away – the random uncertainty of life is not the work of a god.
1) Even if you are an idealist or pan experientialist, that is not the same as believing in gods, at least not in the traditional sense. One can believe that all is mental or that consciousness infiltrates all matter and not believe in a unified master consciousness or believe in additional points of consciousness but not attribute to them traditional god-like qualities.
2) There's no way to measure probabilities without a knowledge of the size or number of universes, which is something we don't have.
Professor Tresmontant makes perfect sense.
Since you didn't bother to even try to address my points, I guess the appropriate response adequate to your standards of intellectual rigor is: "Does not." It's very easy to be convinced by an argument when you are intellectually lazy.
Edit: Professor Tresmontant not only makes perfect sense but also comes across as intellectually eloquent!
LOL...you're getting harder to recognize, faith, and I really do try to avoid you!
How about we postulate a Created Universe on even-numbered days, a tail-swallowing eternal-and-uncreated Universe on odd-numbered days–since each hypothesis, while equally paradoxical, neatly avoids the paradoxes of the other–with, of course, a day off each year for sheer solipsist debauchery.
Mike
Problem with that is that there is actually little in common between a naturally occurring universe and a God. There would be no "miracles" in a naturally occurring universe, and it certainly wouldn't be able to make them happen by itself. This is exactly what we see, a universe that obeys certain laws that we can only assume are "natural". What's more, there isn't as much "planning" in the universe and life as people like to believe. There are way too many examples of bad design in living beings to even suspect that some intelligence was responsible, yet it makes perfect sense under the evolutionary model. The universe didn't have to "organize itself" any more than a river has to mentally choose which way to flow.
Your view of the chances of molecules forming is also flawed. It reads like you are following the probability of a molecule forming right before your eyes, which is akin to any individual winning a super jackpot lotto when we know that, in reality, someone eventually wins, somewhere, due to the huge numbers of people playing. The universe is a big place, with countless opportunities for molecules to have formed, so appealing to low odds of having it happen right before your eyes isn't a very powerful argument at all. People do not have "faith" in the scientific models, but they do have confidence in them because they actually do answer a lot of our questions, are useful in making predictions, and so far have followed the evidence. Religion does none of these things. To accept it above what science tells us is what requires such blind faith.
Mike:
Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are not as stumped .RNA, remains the most popular answer to this.
RNA-world hypothesis is not problematic. RNA and its components are not difficult to synthesize under the best of circ umstances,
in a laboratory, and under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only without a
great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. The RNA world is so satisfying that some scientists are resorting to much more far out –other than speculation.
Did you claim there are no transitional fossil evidence? There is plenty of transitional fossil evidence which proves evolution.
Take for example the evidence found of foot found in the transitional fossil evidence of a whale recently.
Also, mutation is proof of evolution–how you ask? Mutations constantly add new genetic code of an organism.
We could go and on about how stumped we are with the evidence we have for evolution, Mike. Care to respond?
@Mike,
" Matter must be credited with all the attributes that theologians
specify as belonging to God, including supreme intelligence, creative power and eternal, autonomous existence . . ."
1) Why guess? We don't know.
2) That argument excludes the possibility that our intelligence and consciousness is a emergent property of complex interactions of inanimate matter.
@Mike, Yes, we can argue either I don't know how it all began or God. The conviction belongs to the hyperbole created by the hypothesis presented for evolution.
1) Evidence for evolution-Cytochrome complex
2) Fossil evidence for revolution.
In addition to the above is the evidence that the identi ty in and itself speaks to the mentalistic and physicalistic language for complex contingent consciousness derived from matter.
Lionly Lamb, is that you?
"1) Evidence for evolution-Cytochrome complex"
–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.
"2) Fossil evidence for revolution[sic]."
–There is no intermediary fossil evidence that exists. All fossils are of complete species, there is no fossil evidence to prove the gradual morphing of one type of creature into another.
Try again.
@Diedre
Tiktaalik is a wonderful example of a transitional fossil.
see DVestibule post above. Tikaaalik Rose is proof of transitional fossil evidence, proof of sea to land migration and proof that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods.
Know why Tikaalik has flattened skull with eyes on top? It is the missing link to the tetropaad.
@Diedre,
"–There is no intermediary fossil evidence that exists. All fossils are of complete species, there is no fossil evidence to prove the gradual morphing of one type of creature into another."
Perhaps you misunderstand evolution. You are correct that all fossils are complete species, but each species is a transitional form between its ancestors and its decedents. Individuals do not evolve, or morph, but populations do.
As Doc mentioned Tiktaalik is great example as are Amubulocetus, Archeopteryx, and many many others.
Tiktaalik roseae is a fish, like nearly all bony fishes, at best, it is a lobe fin fish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1D1JXqKdkrs
"In addition to the above is the evidence that the identi ty in and itself speaks to the mentalistic and
physicalistic language for complex contingent consciousness derived from matter"
–Not sure if you are arguing that our consiousness is inanimate interaction of matter, then No.
Our brains are receptors to the One consciousness. Brains are different than our minds.
We can think independently but cannot will possibilities into actuality. We cannot imagine an aircraft in the driveway, or the powerball
lottery winning numbers.
"All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created." ~John 1:3
"For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him." ~Colossians 1:16
@Diedre,
Do fish have lungs?
I can't get to the UChicago address (tiktaalik.uchicago.edu), so here's the wikipedia summary:
"The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:
Fish
fish gills
fish scales
fish fins
"Fishapod"
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle
tetrapod lungs"
Tiktaalik is technically a fish,complete with scales and gills — but it has
the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins.
Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones
that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support
as most four-legged animals do.
Tiktaalik would still have all the characteristics
that help us understand the order and way in which tetrapods evolved. However, it would imply that
Tiktaalik and early tetrapods like Acanthostega have long ghost lineages — a series of ancestors
that lived but did not leave behind a fossil record. Tiktaalik cannot be a direct transitional form between fish and tetrapods.
The lobe-fin fish have bones similar to other vertebrates.Tiktaalik,is not unique in having these bones because other
lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them.Tiktaalik is a dead end.
Even other Darwinists claim Tik is not a good example of a transitional.
Which video are you talking about when you say there is no evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sYSRRBp2Wfg
The one above?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3ReWa1cAko&feature=player_detailpage
@Mike
"If you go on attributing
to chance results that in fact are radically contradictory to the laws of probability,
you find that you are in effect spelling chance with a capital letter, and using it as a synonym for God.”
Professor Tresmontant obviously does not understand evolution, assuming that is what he's talking about. Evolution is not random, i.e. not chance. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not.
Mike;
Reality is what it is. Science attempts to understand nature (reality) based upon observation and mathematical abstraction of what we observe, and gives us a means for "certainty" of our results. Science is the pursuit of understanding of nature based in observations which can be stated in terms of confidence that the observations are factual to a degree of mathematical certainty which all can test. The scientific method is as close to "true understanding" of nature that humanity can get.
Invoking a supernatural explanation, "god/s did it..." is invoking an argument based in ignorance with no degree of certainty. Supernatural explanations are an intellectual cop out and a dishonest way of saying "I don't know."
There is a lot we don't know yet, but we will continue to gain understanding of reality by investigating it. Life exists in nature therefore we will learn through science how this is possible. Many religions recognize science as "true" and biblical mythology as allegory. Religious doctrines that deny science and fact are dishonest to the core and harmful to the overall progress of humanity in its understanding of nature and society.