Yes, There is Evidence God Exists

On an October day in 1995, I was diagnosed with an incurable disease.

I’d been sick for several weeks, with stomach pain so severe and debilitating that I was certain I was suffering from a food-borne illness like E. Coli.  I’d lost almost 20 pounds, I was unable to eat, and I hadn’t been to work in almost two full weeks.  After extensive (and intrusive) testing, my doctor delivered the news.

Ulcerative colitis.

I’d never even heard of ulcerative colitis.  In those days, I’d just gotten my AOL account and could barely navigate the web, much less skip through WebMD, the Mayo Clinic’s website, or various sources of authoritative or semi-authoritative information, so I did the next-best thing: borrowed one of my doctor’s medical texts.  As I scanned, I found out everything I already knew — that the disease could be painful and debilitating — and things I didn’t want to know — that the disease could cause life-threatening complications.  Oh, and it was incurable.

*** *** *** ***

In recent years we’ve witnessed the rise of a vocal atheist community, particularly on the Internet.  Some are angry and condescending towards people of faith, some not, but one of the common arguments they make — regardless of attitude — is there is “no evidence” that God exists.

This statement has always puzzled me.  I could understand that they may not be persuaded by the available evidence, but “no evidence”?  Really?

What is “evidence”?  A decent legal definition is “every type of proof legally presented at trial . . . which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.”  This proof can include eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, scientific evidence, and circumstantial evidence.  The types of evidence are too numerous to list.  But whatever its form, the bottom line is the same: It is proof that is intended to convince another person of the truth of the matter asserted.

Evidence is often contradictory.  Eyewitnesses conflict, scientific evidence is often subject to different interpretations or can be tainted by mistakes or corruption in collection and analysis, statistics can often be more confusing than illuminating, but as anyone with even a few seconds of courtroom experience understands, the mere existence of alternative explanations does not — by itself — nullify evidence presented.  Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations certainly increase the difficulty in discerning truth, but saying that one is not persuaded by the evidence presented, or believes that the evidence for one proposition is stronger than the evidence for another proposition, is a materially different statement than the assertion that there is no evidence at all.

*** *** *** ***

 My condition deteriorated rapidly.  I took steroids until my face puffed out like a balloon, reduced my food intake to the most inoffensive and bland items consistent with basic nutrition, and — yes — prayed hard.  Nothing worked.  My weight loss was nearing 40 pounds (to put it in perspective, I was at roughly 125 pounds on a six foot frame).  Within days, I was hospitalized.

IV drugs were ineffective.  I was in unbearable pain.  As I kept wasting away, my doctor introduced me to a top local surgeon, who literally started drawing incision lines on my stomach.  He was preparing to remove my colon.

At that point, my prayers shifted.  I started praying for courage to face the surgery, for stamina in the recovery, and for the fortitude to face the reality of at least a temporary colostomy bag and a forever-changed life.  To that point, I hadn’t reached out much beyond my close, local friends, but now — in my desperation — I cast the net much wider, asking my extended family of law school Christian friends to pray.

*** *** *** ***

One of the more interesting aspects of argument between Christians and atheists is the habit of some to assume that the existence of a possible naturalistic explanation decisively rebuts any assertion of a supernatural cause — regardless of the improbability of the naturalistic explanation (given the current state of scientific thought).  So stories of miraculous healing are dismissed as doctor’s errors or the placebo effect or, simply, wishful thinking.  Other kinds of claimed encounters with God are dismissed as “coincidence” or even madness (and, to be clear, coincidences do exist, and some people are insane).  But the ability to articulate a possible alternative explanation for events does not negate all other alternative explanations.

For example, there are certainly potential alternative stories about Jesus that enjoy varying levels of historical credibility, but does the existence of those alternative stories utterly negate the testimony of the Gospels?  Not at all.  In fact, much of the alternative historical evidence about Jesus comes from more fragmentary sources, with writers more removed from Jesus’s life than the authors of the Gospels.

I’ll say it again: conflicting evidence or alternative explanations do not equate to “no evidence.”

*** *** *** ***

I’ll never forget when the call came.  It was late at night, well after a person as sick as I was should have been in bed.  My law school friend, Ruth, was on the other line.  I hadn’t spoken to her in more than a year.

“David, it’s over.  God has healed you.”

I can’t remember if I laughed out loud, but I do remember feeling angry.  How dare you, I thought.  I’m trying to mentally prepare myself for surgery and recovery, and you’re giving me silly God-talk.

“I’ve been on my face before the Lord for the last two hours, and He told me that you were healed.”

Yeah, right.  We spoke for a few more minutes, but I got off the phone as quickly as politeness would permit.  Still feeling terrible, I went to sleep.

The next morning I woke up and felt curiously refreshed.  For the first time in days, my stomach felt reasonably normal.  No pain.  The next day?  No pain.  And the next?  No pain.  Slowly I began eating real food.  The doctor told me he was holding off on his surgery recommendation, and gave me a bland diet to try to see what my body could handle.

Within days I was devouring enormous amounts of rice, chicken, pasta, and — yes — my mother’s homemade chocolate chip cookies.  By December I’d gained back all 40 lost pounds, was weaned almost entirely off of steroids, and the doctor proclaimed me “in remission” (that can happen with ulcerative colitis patients).

I stayed in remission — for one year, for two years, for five years, for fifteen years.  This November will mark the 18th year since I had any symptoms.  My recovery was so rapid and complete that my doctor changed his initial diagnosis — away from ulcerative colitis.  Subsequent doctors have stated in the years since that “You never had ulcerative colitis.”

What happened to me?  Did my original doctors make a mistake?  Did I never suffer from the disease?  Or did I recover under the awesome power of the world’s most pessimistic placebo, with my friend’s (disbelieved) suggestion that I was healed triggering the brain’s awesome recuperative powers?  Or, did my friend pray, God answered, and He healed me?

Alternative explanations?  Yes.  Conflicting evidence?  Perhaps.  “No evidence” of supernatural intervention?  Oh, please.

*** *** *** ***

Yes, there is evidence that God exists.  I just presented the tiniest piece of that evidence: one incident among many of God’s intervention in my life.  Multiply that by millions upon millions through thousands of years, and you begin to get a sense of the cumulative total of the evidence not just of God’s existence but of His active intervention in human lives.

At the same time, multiply the mistakes and delusions of this fallen world by millions upon millions through thousands of years, and you will also understand why things that seem so plain to you can be so cloudy or opaque to others. I’ve seen crazy people claim direct lines of communication with God, only to spew forth destructive nonsense, and — yes — I’ve seen science provide answers that previous generations had left entirely up to the supernatural.

Ultimately, truth is spiritually discerned.  We can talk evidence all day long, but until the Holy Spirit moves in the heart of man, that heart will remain dead.  But hearts remain dead in part through the lies that we tell ourselves, and one of the greatest lies is this: There is “no evidence” that God exists.

*** *** *** ***

Every October, I think back to 1995, when God granted me a reprieve that I did nothing to deserve.  Then I remember this passage from scripture, a passage that impacts me just as much today as it did in 1995.  From the book of Job, Chapter 33:

19 “Or someone may be chastened on a bed of pain
with constant distress in their bones,
20 so that their body finds food repulsive
and their soul loathes the choicest meal.
21 Their flesh wastes away to nothing,
and their bones, once hidden, now stick out.
22 They draw near to the pit,
and their life to the messengers of death.
23 Yet if there is an angel at their side,
a messenger, one out of a thousand,
sent to tell them how to be upright,
24 and he is gracious to that person and says to God,
‘Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
25 let their flesh be renewed like a child’s;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth’—
26 then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,
they will see God’s face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being.
27 And they will go to others and say,
‘I have sinned, I have perverted what is right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
28 God has delivered me from going down to the pit,
and I shall live to enjoy the light of life.’

Thank you, Jesus, for the great grace you showed an utterly undeserving young lawyer.  Thank you for the evidence of Your existence.

 

  • Paul Loebe

    Hmmm… I have a similar personal anecdote. And I’m an atheist.

    • GCBill

      An inexplicable case of remission, except without prayer or meditation? If so that’d be a neat counterexample.

      • ThisIsTheEnd

        Inexplicable remissions without prayer or meditation happens all the time. Heck it happened to my co-worker

    • Steve

      Why?

      • Paul Loebe

        Why what? Why do I have a similar anecdote or why am I an atheist?

        • Steve

          That second bit.

          • Paul Loebe

            The answer to that is quite long. I honestly can’t answer that at the moment (due to time) and it would be very hard in a comment. If you want I can put a blog together. But it might be awhile.

    • Mo86

      Anti-theists always demand evidence such as healing. And then when they do get such an example, they dismiss it.

  • Steve

    There are also the philosophical and cosmological evidences, but personal evidence is always the best kind. It shows that God isn’t some vague way-out-there concept, but a person(s) who loves you. Thanks for sharing.

  • Jeremy Forbing

    There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, but plenty of anecdotal evidence from his followers. Thankfully, faith does not require evidence. That’s why it is faith, and this kind of evidence is why faith is an individual choice. The flip side of the fact that the existence of God cannot be proven is another fact just as important: neither can the existence of God be *disproven.*

    No one can prove the existence of God to you, He proves to you Himself, and you make your own choice in response to that evidence. Just as David French’s miraculous recovery does not necessarily prove the existence of God to one who has chosen not to believe, evidence of a scientific explanation for his remission would not disprove God’s existence to David French. To those of us who believe, this is clearly what God intended.

    In fact, for me this is a compelling evidence of God’s existence: That He made the universe in such a way that each one of us, as an individual, must make our own choice as to what we believe.

    • Paul

      Well stated, though I would point out that yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence of the existence of God. The existence of the world and the universe are evidence of their creator. The science devoted to the miraculous process of human reproduction have provided plenty of scientific evidence of God’s existence and has laid it out before our eyes. This is not mere anecdotal evidence.

      Science cannot put the “why” into these things, but can only observe things as they are. In other words, it examines the final product, but cannot prove its cause or origin, much as scientific analysis of a painting could never prove definitively the existence of the painter. Yet it does provide strong evidence of the man manipulating the paint brush, does it not?

      The point is that yes, scientific evidence does exist, and in a preponderance. Much comes down to our interpretation of said evidence. Making science a thing unto itself that provides no insight into the existence of God would be a mistake and misunderstands both the purpose and limits of science. After all, science cannot provide conclusory proof of God’s non-existence any more than it can of His existence. Hence as you said, this is where faith and our own personal decision as to what we ultimately will believe comes into play.

      • ThisIsTheEnd

        You’ve confused interpretation for evidence. So what scientific evidence is there for the existence of God?

      • Foxhole Atheist

        Aarrrggghh…science does not and cannot prove a negative…that is not the way it works…first you begin with an hypothesis..e.g.there is a god…the null hypothesis would be there is no god…you then generate evidence in support of your hypothesis…if evidence is sufficient you reject the null hypothesis and you conclude there is a god…if evidence is not forthcoming then you cannot reject the null hypothesis and you must conclude there is no god – this is where most atheists land at the moment…but here is the beauty and elegance of this approach – it is subject to change providing a change in the state of the evidence
        Proof in this way is only as good as the available evidence

        The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence in support of the claim…internal experiences cannot be used as evidence for obvious reasons…also one needs to discount all other possible explanations for the phenomenon that is being claimed to have sufficient and convincing evidence in support of the claim…the original poster failed in this regard

        • Jeremy Forbing

          The onus of proof being on a specific party is a maxim, a best practice, rather than an objective truth. Not all decisions in life are made via the scientific method. I do not love my wife because I scientifically determined her the be the best spousal candidate. The decision to believe or not believe in God should not be made by such rules; doing so would be a disservice to both science and faith.

    • Afriendofgod

      to all of you the Bible has been around for billions and billions of years that is living proof even though there’s still more parts of the Bible that have been shown the Bible is the ultimate evidence profits saying Jesus will come 400 years before he did I’m not going into details but you guys need to get saved

      • Laurence Lu

        The Bible has been around for 3500 years out of the estimated 13.798 billion of the entire universe. You are not getting into details…right…you have no evidence for the existence of God whatsoever. You need to come to your senses.

  • http://www.rozyhomemaker.blogspot.com/ Rozy

    This post brought on tears of joy. What a miraculous blessing. God preserved you for the great work you are doing today, and have done in the past 18 years. God is real, He is our Father, He loves us and the evidence of Him and His love for us is all around for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Thank you ever so much for sharing your personal testimony of His existence.

  • Sven2547

    “Evidence” is a fact that supports an exclusive hypothesis.
    If a fact fits into the framework of multiple hypotheses, it is not “evidence”, it is just a fact.
    It is a fact that spontaneous remission happens. It is not evidence of anything.

    “There is evidence God exists”? Only if we change the definition of “evidence”, as the author has. Congratulations on your recovery.

    • Jakeithus

      I don’t think the author has changed the definition of evidence, especially since he provided a link to show support for the definition that he gave. I haven’t seen evidence referred to as only those facts which support an exclusive hypothesis before, would you be able to provide support to that assertion?

      Not saying that you’re wrong, it very well could be the case that you are using a scientific definition of evidence, while the author is using a legal one. If that’s the case, it’s an example of miscommunication between 2 parties, and a disagreement about the framework that we are working within.

      • Sven2547

        A fair point. I raise this objection:

        This column is explicitly targeted at atheists. He pretty much says so outright. When atheists say “there is no evidence that god(s) exist”, they are talking scientifically. Attempting to address that claim, while refusing to adopt a similar approach to what “evidence” means, is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.

        • Jakeithus

          I’d say more misguided than dishonest, although I would say the audience is both Christian and atheist so it is an acceptable place to begin.

          It goes to highlight that, at least in my mind, the biggest difference between an atheist and a theist are the preconceived assumptions and starting points we begin from. Starting from different places like both groups do makes it hard to accomplish much.

          I’m of the opinion that as long as the basis for God’s existence is dependent on strictly scientific evidence, we probably won’t get anywhere in the disagreements between the 2 sides. Approaching it more like one approaches a legal argument makes more sense to me, but that’s probably my personal bias talking.

  • Peter

    Thank you for your post. I have uc currently. Could you pray for me please? I have moderate uc. I was never hospitalized. But when you are traveling over the Tapenzee Bridge like I did today and took all of your power inside you to hold everything inside before you could find a bathroom, it is a bit of horror which I don’t wish on anyone. I am so happy that God intervened in your life. I pray that all could be healed of this disease.

    • Belinda French

      Peter, you asked for prayers, and I will pray for you. I join in with David in thanking the Lord for His great grace that He showed David and the evidence of His existence.

  • Zeke

    Congrats on your recovery. If you wish to believe that your God was responsible for it, however, you must also consider the following:
    - your God plainly ignored the prayers of millions of other sick Christians in similar situations who suffered miserably and died.
    - Muslims, Hindus, and the faithful of other religions will attest to the same sorts of “miraculous” healings. Does this in any way make you more likely to believe in their Gods?

    • Lance Ellinghaus

      I think you don’t have an understanding about God. David’s God and the God of Muslims, Hindus, and the faithful of other religions are all the same God! There is only one Supreme God of this Universe. We all see God differently based on our exerpiences and beliefs, but there is only 1. He may have “helpers” based on each person’s beliefs, but there is still only 1 Supreme God who created all we see and know.
      As for “God plainly ignored the prayers of millions”… No. God gives us the opportunity to learn. Sometimes we learn from trials that are put in our way. Sometimes we learn from trials put in other people’s way. We have bodies that are mortal and fail. That is a part of life. It is part of the reason we are here on this Earth! We have to learn to love, help, grow. You cannot have the good without the bad. It is the way we learn and grow.
      God did not ignore the prayers of millions. He helps us deal and work with the trials that we have. He is there to help.

      • Foxhole Atheist

        On what evidence do you conclude there is only one god?

    • Raul Valdez Jr.

      I guess you expect God to cure everyone if He exists? Yet Paul, Jacob, Timothy and many people in the bible were sick. I find most creationist science to be ni ether here nor there, but some of it may be worth researching

  • Lance Ellinghaus

    I know God exists and helps us all. Even those that don’t really believe in Him.

    David’s exerpience is one of many examples!

    There are 2 examples in my life that I would like to share that show, at least to me, that God exists.. First, let me state I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormon). I state this because we believe this time on this Earth is where we learn and grow and are tested about our faith. I am a convert to the LDS Church and grew up Episcopal, Catholic, and others. I had quit going to Church at about 16 and did not find out about the LDS Church until I as an adult and my GF (who is now my wife) introduced me to the LDS Church. So, let me go onto my examples…

    First: My wife’s oldest son became ill with Leukemia at age 20 and died at age 21. He had received a bone marrow transplant and everything. He had received blessings saying he would be alright. But we always left it up to God’s will. In the end he is alright. He is not in pain anymore. We miss him but we don’t feel “cheated” or anything. We are happy for him. How do we know God lives through all of this? Because of how our son touched the lives of those around him during all of this. He touched so many lives in the year that he was being treated. He spent about 1/2 of the time in one hospital or another. He brought cheer and happiness to one of the hardest sections of a hospital to be in: the cancer wards. He had dozens of nurses show up to his funeral who said he has changed their lives. He made it easier for the other patients with his joking around and happiness. He never blamed God for what happened to him. One of the last things he asked was for me to serve him the Sacrament in his hospital room. I got permission from our Bishop and on the last Sunday he was alive, I blessed and served him his last Sacrament. I will never forget it. It was an honor. Does God exist? Does He help us? Yes. By giving us strength to go through the hard times, through those around us, and through our opportunities to serve Him and the people around us.

    Second: My daughter has a problem that no one can seem to figure out. Sometimes when she runs she gets incredible abdomen pains. Completely debilitating. She is in pain for hours to the point where she cannot do anything. Well.. not too long ago, she attempted to run 1 mile as part of her Physical Training for Civil Air Patrol. When she finished running the pains hit. She was in such pain it was hard to watch. We had no medicine available because we were out of the house and not much was around. She asked me to give her a blessing. As a Melchizedek priesthood holder in our Church, I gave her a Father’s Blessing. She said that immediately after I started giving her the blessing the pain stopped. She had never had it end like that before. Does God exist and help us? Yes. Through the Priesthood He gives us the ability to help each other, just as the Apostles helped those they came in contact with.

    I could list hundreds of examples in my life that show to me God exists. He loves us. He helps us. But we have to do what we need to. We have to choose to follow. We have to choose to believe. We have to choose to do what he asks us to do.

    • Lance Ellinghaus

      I am going to add one more…
      One of my sons, who is 25, right now does not know what he believes. He cannot make up his mind about God or anything else when it comes to religion. He is actually pretty anti-God/Religion.. Or at least he was more than he is now.

      On July 3rd he was diagnosed with a pretty large brain tumor that involved the entire left side motor cortex (controls his right side of his body). The doctor told him he would probably lose all use of his right arm and hand, probably have problems walking, and other problems when they take it out. They had no choice in the matter. It was a life ending decision if it was left in. On July 10th they did the surgery and took it out. He was given a blessing my me, another pastor that is a friend of his and his fiance. He was added to the Dallas LDS Temple prayer rolls and prayer groups all over the country through friends and family. He was in ICU for 7 hours (instead of 2 weeks as planned). He was out of the hospital in 5 days (instead of 2 months as planned). He was completed with inpatient physical therapy in 1 week (instead of 3 weeks as planned). He is now living at his apartment with his fiance and doing out-patient therapy 2 times a week. He will be starting radiation treatments in 2 weeks and that will take 6 weeks to complete.

      SO how is he doing? He has almost no problem walking, no problem speaking, has full feeling in his arm and hand, has control and use of his arm, and is getting use of his hand back. He can now hold a cup and is beginning to control the individual fingers again. Remember, he has no motor cortex that controls the right side of his body anymore. It was removed.

      God created an incredible thing when he created our bodies. It is not by “chance”. It is by design! The motor cortex that controls his left side has taken over control of both sides (ok… he cannot tell the different of left vs. right anymore since the same side of the brain is doing both, but that will clear up over time).

      I know for a fact that he was blessed by God through the blessings he received and the prayers he has received. Since this all happened, he has had to look at his view of God more. He is learning. People around him are learning. He has his trials and his life has changed, but that is God’s plan for us all: To learn and grow.

      • Zeke

        Thanks for the stories Lance, but you’re probably not surprised to learn that I’m not suddenly converting to Christianity. Your wife’s son dies, and you see this as evidence of God. Your son has surgery that saved his life and you see this as evidence of God. There is simply nothing that would convince you otherwise Lance.
        But I’m sorry to say that if you sincerely believe that Joseph Smith received magic glasses from an angel to translate golden plates, and that the garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri, you are not in a very good position to discuss evidence-based reasoning.

        • Lance Ellinghaus

          I was not expecting to convert anyone to Christianity with my experiences. They are personal. They are faith builders for me. I was just sharing what builds my faith. If they don’t help build your faith in God, I don’t hold that against you. You have to find your own reasons for your faith to build. I know other people that have exerpeinces that I would not consider faith building exerpeinces. That is ok. That is one reason that there are so many different “brands” of Christianity. And that is ok also.
          As for your comments about Joseph Smith, that is a matter of faith. Your mocking of my faith, while I have not mocked anyone else’s faith shows something about you.
          My belief of Joseph Smith being able to translate the Book of Mormon is not any more extreme than the Apostles of Christ’s time being able to do miracles on their own without Christ being there. Is it? Or even Elijah and the oil and flour miracle? Or do you not believe that either?
          As for the location of the Garden of Eden, that is a matter of Faith also. We have our reasons to believe this, and that is fine if you do not believe it. I won’t hold that against you as I would hope my beliefs will not be held against me by you. It is a matter of Respect for another of God’s children. You either have it or you do not.

          • Zeke

            Lance, if I was a devout Muslim and insisted that “we have our reasons to believe” that apostates should be killed, and martyrdom gets me 72 virgins in paradise, would that not be worthy of ridicule? Are we expected to respect these beliefs that cause highly educated men to fly jetliners into buildings are murder people over cartoons?
            Certainly, believing that there was an historic Adam, and that mankind originated in present day North America is not so dangerous a belief as that, but equally worthy of criticism. If you wish to believe something that is refuted by every available shred of historical, archeological, and genetic evidence, that is your right of course. But I need not respect such beliefs, any more than if I told you I have good reasons to believe that Elvis is my next door neighbor.

      • Laurence Lu

        Yep, touching. How about the others who aren’t as fortunate and the ones who unexpectedly died of a rather minor disease? Wow, that is one selfish belief.

  • Korou

    First of all, congratulations on your recovery.
    Speaking as an atheist, I don’t think I would say that there is no evidence for God’s existence. I’d probably say something like “there is no reliable evidence for God’s existence,” and I think most other atheists would probably say the same. Considering the quality of the evidence that is generally given – “miraculous” events that could just be simple coincidences, embarrassingly poor logical “arguments,” and emotional blackmail attempts – it’s probably kinder to say that there is no evidence for God’s existence.

    • Lance Ellinghaus

      But for the same dsicussion, there is no evidence against God’s existence. Can you prove, with evidence, that God does NOT exist?

      • Korou

        I don’t need to be able to do so in order to be an atheist. To illustrate: can you prove that fairies do not exist? And do you need to be able to prove their nonexistence in order to say that you don’t believe in them?

  • http://lotharson.wordpress.com/ Lothars Sohn

    Hello, this is indeed a touching testimony :=)

    But in a wide-enough universe, even stranger things are going to occur somewhere.

    Hence, this is not evidence for God’s existence, sorry :-(

    Lovely greetings from Germany
    Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland

    LotharsSohn – Lothar’s son
    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

  • Johannes Richter

    Pharaoh had 9 compelling reasons to let the Israelites go, but he only gave in when one affected him personally. Job only fell silent when the evidence of his own inabilities became apparent, despite all the probable explanations.

    In a perfect world all evidence would be compelling and unequivocal, but in this world some who are guilty go free, and some who are not are convicted. It’s not the evidence that matters, but whether it changes you. Does it seem like God is very preoccupied with having people acknowledge his existence?

  • KarenJo12

    What do you tell all the people God doesn’t heal? That you are so important you get to stay while their toddler dies from neuroblastoma? If I were you I would never, ever tell this story because it makes God look like arbtrary and you look like a self-centered twit.

    • Foxhole Atheist

      Agree entirely…it’s the same as athletes thanking god for helping them score or win the game..pure arrogance and extreme ignorance of all the suffering in the world that somehow escapes the attention of an all powerful, personal, intervening god

      • Laurence Lu

        LOL, think of the other team.

      • Syceroe

        Wtf are you reading this for anyway you leir.

    • daxster

      No God And I Can Prove It

  • E.A. Blair

    Big deal. Ten years ago I was having epileptic seizures; now, I am in complete remission, not because of divine intervention but because I have eliminated those factors in my environment that lowered my seizure threshold. If I did want to attribute my asymptomatic existence to a deity, why not Hermes or Odin or Ganesh*? In this case, too, I know now that it was a prescription drug that I should not have taken that triggered the seizures in the first place, but that still does not change the facts surrounding the remission.

    *It’s been said that all who follow the bible are atheists to a certain degree, in that they reject the existence of all but one deity whereas atheists reject the existence of just that one additional god.

  • Mick

    You write: “Thank you, Jesus, for the great grace you showed an utterly undeserving young lawyer. Thank you for the evidence of Your existence.”

    Why do you think Jesus singled you out for ‘great grace’ while others continue to suffer the disease with no chance of cure?

    Since your case of ulcerative colitis was so effectively cured have you ever wondered why Jesus doesn’t give the same cure to other sufferers?

  • http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/ Lothar Lorraine

    One main problem with using very rare and spectacular healings as evidence for God’s existence is that there are infinitely more examples of diseases leading to death.
    In such a situation, the question: “why did God do nothing?” is crying for an answer.

    Moreover, all these types of apologetic rely on a God-Of-The-Gap reasoning; we cannot yet come up with a good explanation for that, so God did it.
    As a consequence of this way of thinking, we naturally tend to exclude the possibility may be almost always working through the laws of nature He designed.

    Greetings from continental Europe

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

  • Chris

    Oh brother…

    And you claim to be a lawyer? Do magical claims go down well with juries? “My client is completely innocent because it was god wot made him do it”. Your magical thinking is going to cause miscarraiges of justice. If you had any moral and intellectual integrity you would get a job where you have no power over people’s lives.

  • Joe

    Weird, I was praying to satan at the exact same time. Maybe that’s what did it…

    • Alius

      Could be true.. But did you think for at least 1 fraction of a second that Satan’s existence proves God’s existence? Hope for that Satan won’t visit you…

      And for all: the fact that are wars and death and diseases, maybe it is because of us in many cases (arrogance, pride, greedy etc). Also, even though I am in no situation to say that I know how is to lose a child, think that maybe God is trying us. Remember: this life is suppose to be just a temporary, short passage to the next stage, and all that matters is how we live and the faith. So, everything should have a meaning,a purpose, even though we are not able to see it.

      In conclusion: if God exists, we cannot (we are not capable to) judge with our minds something that is beyond our understanding. Is like an ant is trying to figure out the logic of the things that surrounds it.

      My opinion.

  • George

    For mathematical proof of God’s existance see Amazing19.com

  • Laurence Lu

    By ‘evidence’ we meant concrete evidence. Evidence, as you said, is just something that points towards one side. Evidence doesn’t have to be absolute, it can be a seven year old who claimed to be the witness of a murder. That could be considered evidence.
    However, I am afraid that evidence against the existence of god is less contradictory, and the many methods we use for are constantly being improved on.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      And precisely what is this “evidence against the existence of god”?

      • UWIR

        A basic principle of epistemology is that if X is evidence of Y, then not X is evidence of not Y. If you agree that a person receiving a mysterious healing is evidence of God, then logically you must agree that every single instance of someone not receiving a mysterious healing is evidence against God.

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Which would be a reductionist move no reasonable person who’s actually read the Bible through would accept.

      • Laurence Lu

        Any comment that does not support this article does not necessarily mean that it is against it. In this case, there is no such thing as “You’re either with me or against me.”
        So, while there may be something that leans toward it according to one interpretation, the facts may be interpreted differently by another. Why is it that if there is a so-called miracle, it is attributed to a god (oh, and while this article implies the Christian god, what about Allah, or Yahweh, or Aphrodite?) every time. 2013 does not mean we know how every medical case worked.

        • Joseph O Polanco

          I don’t follow. How does this answer my query?

          • Laurence Lu

            It answers not directly, but basically, no, it doesn’t have anything major to do with evidence against god. If it seemed like I implied that it did, I’m sorry. I was just talking about the nature of how evidence is interpreted. :/

          • Joseph O Polanco

            No worries. Thank you for that important clarification. If not on evidence, what, then, is your belief in God’s nonexistence based on?

          • Laurence Lu

            To further clear things up, I am what you may consider to be an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe there is proof available specifically for the existence or nonexistence of a god. I just think various physcial hypotheses can explain or at least lead to us being able to explain the existence of the universe and intelligent life. Basically, I don’t believe in god as I would want more concrete proof that a god exists, just like, for a vulgar analogy, I would need the concrete proof that there is a giant penis lord that hovers over the Earth, but is invisible.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of a Creator.

            “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Soren Kierkegaard

          • Laurence Lu

            I myself do not believe in creation, however.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Why not? Do you also not believe in the science of Biomimetics?

          • Laurence Lu

            Oh, I do. But believing that it is a result of creationism? No.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Why?

          • Laurence Lu

            Because various physical hypotheses can explain the evolution of life across billions of years or at least lead us to it. I do not pretend to know what actually happened, but I can only hypothesize instead of going with a simple answer of “God did it 6000 years ago.”

          • Joseph O Polanco

            So your problem with a Creator is that it’s a simple answer?

          • Laurence Lu

            An easy to comprehend answer is very tempting. But I’m sticking with the ‘We’ll keep discovering stuff before we go extinct theory.’

          • J. Polanco

            I can’t help but apprehend that you’re more interested in the complexity of an answer rather than its veridicality. Or am I misunderstanding your position?

          • Laurence Lu

            Because, I don’t think the answers we have now is anywhere near complete. To be honest, just a few hundred years ago we realized that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Instead, we thought the Sun was. Then they had to amend that, because relatively, we were at the center of our obsevable universe, just like for every other potential being on another planet. So, by saying that I just want a complex answer, you are misunderstanding my position. I just don’t think we have everything yet, and that’s why I will continue my agnostic-atheism (to clarify, it means that I do not think we have concrete proof that there is a god or not, but I currently do not believe in one), at least for now. Sometimes, I feel that one being in a seemingly infinite universe believing that their believe is certain is almost pathetic. That is not to say that you (as I can see you respond to me in a neutral way) or most other religious people are pathetic. I am not 100% certain that my stance on a god is correct. To sum it up: I think we need more information.

          • J. Polanco

            So your position is purely philosophical, not evidentiary. On the other hand, if you chose to give serious weight to the evidence for God’s existence you would be a theist. I get it.

          • Laurence Lu

            That is more of an observation from one side. Yes, my position is predominantly philosophical. How could one combination of cells and atoms be able to be so sure of a supreme being’s existence or not, especially wuth such little justification and such a narrow perception and standpoint, I wonder. I guess that could be a reason for the thousands of religions out there (even if you did convince me of a god’s existence, you’d need to convince me of yours). So many cultures, ways of thinking, different views of the world we live in. Yet to be honest, at most one major religion can be right. Everybody will claim that it is their stance on religion that is correct, including you and me. We are just other people to you, but that view is shared by me. No opinion truly has a greater value than another.
            But the part where you say that it is not based on evidence, and implying that if I analyzed the evidence for God’s existence, I would believe in one? No, I do not believe that you get it. You know me as I know you: random guy striking up a conversation through typing and text. Trying to understand my position through this is not going to be a very conclusive one. But if there is one thing to note, there is evidence for and against God’s existence, but this, even though contradictory at first, is largely based on interpretation on what the evidence holds. A goldfish with an ‘X’ seemingly engraved on it could look like a shortened tilted cross sent from Jesus Christ. It could also mean that during production, there was a miniscule mistake in shaping the snack.

          • J. Polanco

            Indirect evidence is frequently and reliably depended upon to ascertain the reality of the world we live in . As a case in point , it’s long been widely-used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion , hydrogen is present on it or that the our planet features an iron core . In like manner , creation as well as the reality that not a one of fulfilled Bible predictions has at any time been completely wrong constitutes unquestionable attestation for the reality of it’s composer , Jehovah God .

            This is, by far the most persuasive logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such an illustrious prominence. Considering the fact that it’s literally ** impossible ** for any person to foresee with complete precision what’s sure to occur from one hour to the next, there’s no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

          • Laurence Lu

            You say this as a Christian. But the bias that comes with any standpoint (don’t think I exclude my own) can be easily written off a an educated but partial statement that in no was represents fact. Prophecies can be interpreted in any way, hell, a Catholic pastor once believed that Obama would be the omen of a disaster, and various people have believed him to be the antichrist. People have claimed that the a bible predicted AIDS, the Spanish Flu, and so on. The Torah and the Quran have similar people who interpret them as prophecies. I know of several end of the world predictions that will apparently take place mid-century by three predictions on the Quran. I also know of at least half a dozen utterly incorrect predictions that have happened within my lifetimes and I’m actually in my teenage years. And just because not one of huge supposed prophecies have been completely wrong in the Bible just proves that it can potentially be taken as a metaphoric compilation inspired by God but written by men. Such evidence you present me is adequate for the possibility of a deistic god, which I acknowledge, as implied by the agnostic side of my standpoint. If I haven’t stated before, I will again emphasize that my atheism is a broad one, defined by a mere absence of belief, open to supporting evidence both ways. I like to think of myself as a freethinker, despite the slightly positive and potentially arrogant connotations it displays.

          • J. Polanco

            “I had a deep respect for our body’s sophisticated design. For example, the way our kidneys control the amount of red cells in our blood is awe-inspiring. As you may know, red blood cells transport oxygen. If you lose a lot of blood or if you go to a high altitude, your body will lack oxygen. Our kidneys have oxygen sensors. When they detect an oxygen shortage in the blood, they activate the production of EPO, and the level of EPO in the blood may rise as much as a thousandfold. The EPO stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red cells, which in turn transport more oxygen. It’s wonderful! Strangely, I studied this process for ten years before it struck me that only God could design such an elegant system.

            I was intrigued by the way the Bible foretold the year of Jesus’ baptism. It shows exactly how much time would elapse between the 20th year of the reign of the Persian ruler Artaxerxes and the year Jesus would present himself as the Messiah. I am accustomed to doing research—it is part of my job. So I researched history books to confirm the dates of Artaxerxes’ rule and the dates of Jesus’ ministry. Finally, I concluded that this Bible prophecy had come true on time and that it must have been inspired by God.” -Dr. Céline Granolleras, former atheist (http://bit.ly/1dNnE8I)

            So you see, there is no apophenia or confirmation bias with Bible prophecies. They are precisely what they claim to be.

            In light of your noetical honesty, I invite you to carefully consider all of the related facts before coming to a final conclusion on the matter :)

          • Laurence Lu

            Unlike most people I have met on Disqus, you are quite a persistent but respectful and educated person who cites sources and politely gives his side on the topic. However, one thing that I would like to note again is that this is not my final conclusion, and in case you missed it, I am still in my teenage years. I am quite certain that theology and philosophy will be on my list during college. Also, I do think that the prophecies are still interpreted using the approximations by several different scholars, also given the different dates estimated for the date of creation. Also the intelligent design, I do believe, can be achieved through four billion years of evolution and natural selection.

          • J. Polanco

            “My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense.

            Then, in the early 1970’s, I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience then asked where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, “Read the Bible—the creation story in Genesis in particular.”

            Later, in the lobby, I asked the professor if he was serious about the Bible. In essence, he replied: “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense.

            Every good scientist, regardless of his beliefs, must be as objective as possible. But my faith has changed me. For one thing, instead of being overly self-confident, highly competitive, and unduly proud of my scientific skills, I am now grateful to God for any abilities I may have. Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’” – Professor František Vyskočil – Former Atheist (http://bit.ly/K8lEip)

          • Laurence Lu

            Interesting story. I will presume that you are presenting to me some form of the argument for the mathematical impossibility of evolution. However, I believe that some factors omitted in the argument. The fact that dwarfism is causes by the double dominant genetic inheritance, yet it is quite obvious that an overwhelming majority of people have a double recessive inheritance strongly implies that it was not a purely 50/50 random choosing, but by the process of not only natural selection but also a predisposition-like-affected leaning towards the more favorable or beneficial ‘choice.’ I truly believe that we do not know to be able to assume so quickly (it’s only been a few hundred years since we realized that we were not at the center of the universe [although we are at the center of our own observable universe, by definition]), so I will hope that we discover more within my lifetime.

            On a side note, a science lecture in the 1970′s? A Baby Boomer talking to a Millennial. This ought to be a diverse conversation. I surely hope I don’t match the ‘Me, Me, Me’ stereotype. :|

          • J. Polanco

            You’re not really trying to compare your understandings with that of a world-renowned Professor of Neurophysiology, are you?

          • Laurence Lu

            If that is all you have gotten from my reply, and then assuming I am trying to go against the understandings of someone who is an expert on the study of the human nervous system (as well as other animals, I assume), that is complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to day as a whole. I understand that you have decades of experience with this, and I was in no way challenging you of that. It’s possible that if I did not disclose my approximate age as a young, interested person in theological and philosophical matters, then maybe you would have considered my thoughts on this as more important. The scientific information that Wikipedia gives is comparable to Encyclopedia Brittanica according to several studies, but if you think that is the only place we Millenials get our information, you’d be deeply misinformed. But while my understanding is miles away from yours in that field, genetically my father has a PHD in Biochemistry, as with my grandmother. I’ve dedicated much of my spare time learning about the inheritance of genetics, so I’m on my way to learn more about how evolution can play a role. Much respect to your position, however.

          • J. Polanco

            I was just taken aback by how casually you dismissed the findings of scientific researchers showing how evolution cannot be a plausible explanation for the existence of life. Especially since you’ve expressed several times how you’re still just learning about all this. It would seem, though, that your mind is already made up and you’re loath to any facts which contradict it.

          • Andrew G.

            The short answer to this is that such casual dismissal is perfectly justified by the fact that something like 99% of biologists agree.

          • J. Polanco

            And just how is this not a fallacious argumentum ad populum?

          • Andrew G.

            What a pathetic attempt.

            It is not fallacious because you are the one relying on the authority of claimed experts, and I am simply pointing out that your “authorities” represent not the consensus of informed expert opinion, but rather the lunatic fringe.

            If you want it in formal language: we “casually” dismiss your “findings of scientific researchers” argument because it is an argument from false authority, and the 99% of biologists who disagree with you are referenced merely as evidence of that falsity (since they represent an informed expert consensus which goes against your position).

          • J. Polanco

            Except for the reality that the myth “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” is shorn of any demonstrable , quantifiable , empirical , testable or replicable evidence . The reasoning here is this requires millions upon millions of years – which absolutely no one has actually observed since , well , it needs millions upon millions of years. Nevertheless the fossil record , which ought to demonstrate a string of infinitesimally progressive adjustments from one being to another over a course of millions of years , reveals the complete opposite . . . but it’s anticipated that ( one day , someday ) the “missing” fossils of those intermediate species are going to eventually be discovered . In short , the only evidence for evolution is the presumption of evolution . If that’s not lunatic fringe circular thinking , just what is ?

          • Andrew G.

            If you actually cared about the facts, you would make some effort to inform yourself from the many excellent online and print sources available.

            I suggest starting with Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective for some of the evidence for the age of the Earth, independent of evolution.

            To touch briefly on the other topics: the fossil record is incomplete because fossilization can only occur in rare conditions, and only a minute fraction of the volume of sedimentary rock can be examined to recover fossils from it. In spite of that, we have many excellent examples of evolution, for example a long series of therapsid and mammaliform skulls demonstrating the evolution of the mammalian malleus/incus ear bones from the “reptilian” jaw joint; several intermediates between land ungulates and whales; and so on. We do not expect “infinitesimal” changes because we do not have an infinite number of fossils; what fossils we do have show differences as expected according to their relative dates. Furthermore, many of the fossils we now have were predicted to exist before being discovered, that is, they were once “missing” and we found them. Why is it unreasonable to expect, then, that the ones we now call “missing” are equally likely to be found in the future?

            Abiogenesis – the development of life from nonliving organic molecules – is a separate subject from evolution, and one that we know much less about. We can reasonably regard it as proved that all known extant life descends from an ancestral prokaryote (the LUCA, last universal common ancestor), and that in turn the LUCA was the descendent of simpler ancestors; but our reliable knowledge currently ends here. We do know, however, that there is a high probability that all the required chemical building blocks (purines, pyrimidines, ribose, simple amino acids, etc.) were available from abiotic sources, and there is no known reason to believe that time and chance would not suffice to produce a simple replicator, even if we don’t yet know exactly what.

            Evolution itself is of course supported by vast quantities of demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable and replicable evidence, but you seem uninterested in exploring it (rather than dogmatically declaring it not to exist) so it would probably be a waste of time trying to explain it to you.

          • J. Polanco

            Because of PE which had to be invented when fanatical evolutionists finally, FINALLY admitted Gradualism had no basis in fact or the fossil record.

            Problem is, PE is nothing more than a cheap euphemism for special creation by God.

          • Andrew G.

            Nothing I said had anything to do with PE.

          • J. Polanco

            Which you conveniently left out. That and the fact that Gradualism was disproved as the canard it was. If things keep going the way they’ve been PE will soon be next on the chopping block.

          • Andrew G.

            You seem to be confusing PE – which says nothing more than that rates of evolutionary change vary wildly, and that large established populations change extremely slowly, both of which are inevitable consequences of the mathematics of population genetics – with saltationism, the position that radical changes can appear in a single generation.

            “Gradualism” is the opposite of saltationism and includes PE, rather than being opposed to it.

            (In fact, we know that saltational changes can happen but are very, very rare; a classic example is the formation of new plant species by hybridization and polyploidy.)

            Even when a change happens too fast to be visible in the fossil record, though, we can still see the clear evolutionary relationships between sibling species, which would not be the case if the changes were saltational or were the result of “special creation”.

          • Laurence Lu

            Hello. I’ve read your past comments on this page, and I quite respect your input into the discussion. Gradualism certainly does seem more credible and plausible than special creation.
            It is hard to put into words, but I often think that people of much older age (including our neurophysiologist we’re discussing things with here [I'm in my teengage years]) begin with a belief in God, and only accept justifications and interpreted evidence for their rooted in belief. My agnostic-atheism at such a young age is not a belief set in stone, contrary to Mr. Polanco’s perception of my atheism as possibly militant and adamant. I suspect that he’ll be replying to both of our most recent comments as he is quite persistent, in good ways and bad. I do hope that you’re fine with my imput as well.
            For a further query, where would you put yourself on Dawkins’ belief scale? (Personally, I’d say I’m at a 6.0-6.3 or so. De facto atheist? More or less.)

          • Andrew G.

            I find it clearer to express it as a probability on a logarithmic scale: I’d need something on the order of 60dB to 90dB of new evidence (i.e. million-to-one or billion-to-one odds ratios) before taking a generic theistic hypothesis seriously, and about the square of that (120dB to 180dB) before taking Christianity (or Islam or Judaism etc.) seriously. If you want to call that 6.999999 on Dawkins’ scale that’s fine by me.

          • Laurence Lu

            My methodological solipsism (The weakest form of believing that you cannot know what is outside of your consciousness) is finding a challenge (but, irrational, indefensible, and adamant as solipsism is, I’ll probably still convince myself that it’s a possibilty that some part of my grand creation of the world made you say what you did).
            Two words: Holy fuck. (Excuse my language as a teenager.)
            I don’t know how resonant that is with my thoughts on Dawkins’ scale. But here’s how I put it: 6 does not mean it is about 83% probability that there is not a god. I already put the logorithim into effect with my technical mind. Richard Dawkins has put himself at a 6, 6.5, and 6.9 on his own scale, and says the probability of no god to him is 99%. But why use such a narrow scale? If 1% equals 1×10 to the negative 2nd power, that is one high chance that he is almost militantly expressing his atheism-all the while being completely wrong and later mind find out (given there is an afterlife and a god) that he was utterly mistaken!
            My 6.0-6.3 in probability will differ greatly from others, given the variability of exponential values, but I would say the existence of a god (more specific than any higher power, but less specific that a personal god to pray to [say, a deistic god would be the cutoff point for me]) would be somewhere between 1 in 10000 to 1 in 1000000 for me. This is a wildly inaccurate guess of the probability of a god, and if you ask the most adamant and devout believer, he or she will probably say the opposite, where that is the maximum for the probability that a god DOES NOT exist. Funny thing is, probabilities are only from one scope or point of view, given that something either will or will not happen, is or is not existent, etc. (through in fate and you’ve got the probability of whether something is 100% or 0%, and then the confidence rating of that probability, and so on and so forth)
            If put into my scale, you would probably be somewhere where I am, probably slightly more skeptical of god than I.
            I like how you used the logorithims of decibels and the energy released by sound. I believe the loudest sound possible is approximately 194 decibels, and then in becomes a shock wave. With about 80 decibels being an average yell by a human being, 180 decibels is about the average of a rocket going off a launch bad. The difference in energy released is 10 trillion. That causes instant death of hearing tissue. The Krakatoa explosion has been said to be at least 180 decibels, but that may have been only estimated or measured from a far distance away. Some have put it near 300 decibels, far past the threshold of when a sound becomes a shock wave. I’m not suprised that 36,000 people were killed during and after the event. The magnitude of some things are amazing, at least from our small scope of reality around us.
            Well, that was a long comment.
            Such discussions are immensely interesting at times.

          • Andrew G.

            The use of decibels in this context is only to give a logarithmic scale, not to draw an analogy with sound. Decibels apply to any ratio scale; 10dB means a ratio of ten times, 20dB a ratio of 100 times, and so on. (dB = 10 times the base-10 logarithm of the ratio.) Sound is measured in terms of the power of the sound wave compared to a nominal value intended to represent the quietest audible sound.

            Evidence can be measured usefully in decibels because according to Bayes’ Theorem, multiple independent items of evidence are combined by multiplying the odds-ratios, which is equivalent to adding the decibel values. So one piece of evidence worth 10dB and another worth 3dB makes 13dB of evidence. As an example, particle physics experiments usually demand a 5-sigma threshold, which corresponds very roughly to 63dB of evidence if the experiments are performed honestly.

          • Laurence Lu

            I got it. Actually, while I was slightly misled there, but my reference to decibels also showed the many things that it could, in theory, be compared to. True, I would also present something in logorithmic probability, imagine that if you could not be absolutely certain, you had to go with at least a 1% chance that you were incorrect (that is, if 99% was the highest you could go to). Also, for something to be presented as a fact, you must be quite sure. As I am still figuring things out (and I will guess you have some kind of profession or experience in this), I will research more into the topic of statistical significance. If I’m not mistaken, 5-sigma (63dB) of evidence corresponds to a p-value of 1 in 3.5 million.

          • Andrew G.

            The p-value only tells you the denominator (i.e. P(E|~H)), and for 5-sigma it’s 1 in ~1.7 million for two tails, or your value for one tail. (Assuming a normal distribution of course.) I said “very roughly” because I was glossing over this bit for simplicity and assuming P(E|H) approaching 1.

            The odds-ratio is P(E|H) (i.e. the chances of seeing the evidence given that the hypothesis is true) divided by P(E|~H) (the chances of seeing the evidence if the hypothesis is false). Multiplying this ratio by the prior odds (not probability) gives the posterior odds. This is the simplest way to do Bayesian probability calculations as long as you keep the distinction between probability and odds straight.

            Many statisticians have begun to despair at the ubiquitous use and misuse of p-values…

          • Laurence Lu

            Interesting. Thanks for the tip. I’ve looked into certain aspects of this, and not just on the semi-credible references on Wikipedia. I must have forgotten some of the extracurricular lesson in science concerning odds and probability in experiments.

          • J. Polanco

            Given all the leaps and assumptions you’ve made, how is this nothing more than apophenia jumbled with confirmation bias?

          • Andrew G.

            I haven’t made any leaps and assumptions; everything I’ve said is backed up by decades of work by thousands of scientists, as you’d know if you made any attempt to learn about the issue.

            Have you even read the radiometric dating article?

          • J. Polanco

            Sure you have. You’ve assumed “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” without a shred of demonstrable , quantifiable , empirical , falsifiable , testable , replicable evidence.

          • Andrew G.

            That all known life on earth is descended from a common ancestor is not an assumption, it is a conclusion supported by massive amounts of data, which I simply did not discuss since this is a blog comment and not a textbook.

            To summarize, the phylogenetic relationships of many different metabolic genes have been studied; by looking at both the similarities and the differences between gene sequences we can deduce the ancestry, and when we do that for dozens of different genes we get the same tree, making it overwhelmingly probable that there was in reality only one ancestor.

            I specifically noted that we do not know how abiogenesis happened, assuming it did. However, what we do know is that all the required building blocks are formed with high probability in abiotic conditions, and there are a number of known mechanisms which can plausibly have contributed to the development of life. Accordingly, we have no reason to reject the idea, and every reason to continue to study it to accumulate more evidence.

          • J. Polanco

            Hence your presumption “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” without a shred of demonstrable , quantifiable , empirical , falsifiable , testable , replicable evidence.

          • Andrew G.

            Do you object to both parts of that statement (common descent and abiogenesis) or to abiogenesis alone?

          • J. Polanco

            Both. Both are historical claims without a shred of historical evidence.

          • Andrew G.

            OK, putting abiogenesis aside for now, how far do you dispute common ancestry? Do you believe all mammals have a common ancestor? All animals? All eukaryotes? None of the above?

          • J. Polanco

            Common descent is a historical claim without a hint of historical evidence to support it.

          • Andrew G.

            See here for extensive discussion of the evidence.

          • J. Polanco

            The entire site presumes a priori “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” That’s not science, that’s myth and dogma.

          • Andrew G.

            The specific page I linked to presents actual evidence, with citations to the primary literature, for common descent. Would you rather discuss specific items of evidence? How about the pattern of HERV-K insertions in the primate genome (see under “Endogenous retroviruses”), which would conclusively prove the common descent of various primate subgroups even in the absence of any other evidence?

            Edited to add: don’t waste my time with videos (such as the one that put your response into moderation), either summarize your argument or link to detailed text sources.

          • J. Polanco

            “My doubts about evolution began when I was studying synapses. I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense.

            Then, in the early 1970’s, I attended a lecture by a famous Russian scientist and professor. He stated that living organisms cannot be a result of random mutations and natural selection. Someone in the audience then asked where the answer lay. The professor took a small Russian Bible from his jacket, held it up, and said, “Read the Bible—the creation story in Genesis in particular.”

            Later, in the lobby, I asked the professor if he was serious about the Bible. In essence, he replied: “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” The Bible book of Genesis, he felt, made much more sense.

            Every good scientist, regardless of his beliefs, must be as objective as possible. But my faith has changed me. For one thing, instead of being overly self-confident, highly competitive, and unduly proud of my scientific skills, I am now grateful to God for any abilities I may have. Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’” – Professor František Vyskočil – Former Atheist (http://bit.ly/K8lEip)

          • Andrew G.

            Synapses and their genetics are not the products of “blind chance”, they are the products of natural selection.

            As for the second-hand reported (unsourced) quote about bacterial evolution, it is contradicted by both experimental and observational evidence. One of the more striking examples is the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria: an existing bacterial strain evolved a novel digestive enzyme that enables it to feed off nylon oligomers in the waste products of industrial nylon manufacture. Nylon oligomers do not exist in nature, so this evolution has taken place within a timescale of under 40 years. In addition, when another strain of bacteria was induced in the lab to evolve the ability to digest nylon (by starving it of other food sources), it did so by evolving a different novel enzyme.

            A similar experiment has been under way (by Lenski et al) since 1988 involving samples of E. coli grown under restrictive conditions and regularly preserved in order to study the evolutionary history of any evolved trait. After 20 years, one of the sample populations evolved the ability to feed on citrate in the presence of oxygen, which was found to have required at least three separate mutations to confer even a small fitness advantage, followed by a large number of refinements.

            So we have a pretty good idea of just how fast bacteria can evolve; with their small genomes, high reproduction rate and vast population sizes, a bacterial strain can evolve new capabilities rapidly, and then the ability to exchange plasmids allows such capabilities to be spread between strains.

            This is (part of the reason) why 99%+ of biologists – whether atheists or not – are quite satisfied that the unnamed “famous Russian scientist” you refer to was talking through his hat (or out of an orifice better reserved for other uses).

          • J. Polanco

            And just how precisely is natural selection not merely blind chance?

          • Andrew G.

            Precisely because the “selection” part operates to eliminate changes that don’t work.

          • J. Polanco

            And just how precisely is the “selection” not merely blind chance?

          • Andrew G.

            Precisely because changes that don’t work don’t result in surviving offspring, while changes that work well usually result in more surviving offspring.

            There is still chance involved because beneficial mutations might die out by chance, slightly harmful ones might spread by chance, or a beneficial mutation might be contingent on prior chance mutations; but this is a long way from being “blind chance”.

            So, for example, the streamlined shape of a whale is not the result of “blind chance”, but rather the result of the fact that small changes towards a streamlined shape were more beneficial to survival for the early semi-aquatic whales than small changes away from a streamlined shape. (The land ungulate, relative of the ancestors of hippos, that the whale evolved from was probably not especially well streamlined to start with.)

          • J. Polanco

            You say “There is still chance involved” which can only mean that, fundamentally, natural selection – as well as “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” by extension – are mythologies that rely on amazing chance to explain the outrageously tiny compound chance of standalone events giving us a life sustaining universe.

          • Andrew G.

            It means nothing of the sort.

          • J. Polanco

            Why not?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            Firstly, because chance modification plus selection is known to be effective at producing useful working systems – so much so that we now use it as an engineering technique.

            Secondly and more importantly, because chance plus selection leads us to expect different results than we’d get with pure chance, so we can make testable predictions about the kinds of changes we see or don’t see.

          • Maxximiliann

            Can you give me some specific examples of how “chance modification plus selection is known to be effective at producing useful working systems – so much so that we now use it as an engineering technique”?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.
          • Maxximiliann

            How is a tiny piece of bent wire a working system?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            That piece of bent wire performs better, as an X-band satellite microwave comms antenna, than a human could design for the specific job it was built for.

            An antenna like that is a “system” because each part interacts with every other part. Antenna design is all about arranging parts (whether connected to the feeder or passively coupled) in such a way that the desired signals are reinforced and others suppressed.

          • Maxximiliann

            I’ll rephrase. How exactly does a single piece of bent wire constitute the arrangement of numerous interrelated constituent parts or elements in a string of steps adhered to in a consistent clear-cut order to effectuate a task , purpose , goal or operation?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            You do realize it’s not arbitrarily bent? The precise length and angle of each part of the wire is critical – each part both generates an electromagnetic field and reacts to the fields generated by every other part of the wire. The design requirements impose stringent restrictions not only on the emitted radiation pattern but also on the matching of the antenna’s electrical characteristics to the source.

            If you think it’s too simple to qualify as a “system”, then I invite you to write down and solve the equations governing its electrical behaviour – a task which is not only beyond me but also would be beyond the radio experts I used to work with.

          • Maxximiliann

            So you’re saying a single bent piece of wire is an arrangement of numerous interrelated constituent parts?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            Sure. You can’t analyze it usefully as either a single object or as a collection of noninteracting parts; what’s your objection?

          • Maxximiliann

            So a paperclip is also a system, i.e., an arrangement of numerous interrelated constituent parts?

            Desperate much?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            You could probably design a paperclip.

            Do you think you could design an X-band antenna? Do you have even the most rudimentary understanding of the principles involved?

          • Maxximiliann

            And you seriously think life wasn’t designed?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            Not only do I think life was not designed, but the overwhelming majority of actual biologists agree with me on that, regardless of their religious beliefs or culture.

            Since you’ve yet to make a single substantive point, or answer any of mine, and my browser is struggling to handle this thread, I will stop here.

          • Maxximiliann

            Do you think you could design a dragonfly or a nautilus or any other living being? Do you have even the most rudimentary understanding of the principles involved?

          • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

            I have a pretty good understanding of the principles of biological systems, actually; certainly enough to estimate the difficulty. But since I’m not denying that organisms are complex systems, even though not designed, your argument is irrelevant.

            (In the X-band antenna case, the fact that you dismiss it as merely a bent wire shows that you are ignorant of its real complexity; you think it is easy to design, which it is not. I could have used other examples, ones which look superficially more complex, but I’ve found that this one is best for revealing creationist ignorance.)

          • Maxximiliann

            You’re not making sense. How does any of this answer my query?

          • Maxximiliann

            You have been engaging in equivocation , a deceitful rhetorical tactic. A piece of bent wire is no more a system than a toothpick is a system. Try again.

          • Laurence Lu

            Casual dismissal would be a very extreme way of putting it. I considered both sides, and “findings of scientific researchers showing how evolution cannot be a plausible explanation for the existence of life” seems like a very certain statement, the exact same thing you accused me of making. “It would seem, though, that you mind is already made up and you’re loath to any facts which contradict it.” From respectful and honest to one-sided and condescending. You seem to see everything from your view only, acting as if you know exactly what goes on in other people’s heads. I expected slightly more from an experienced professional in the field of neurophysiology. Your persistence begins to seem like a dignity contest than conversational exchange of viewpoints. If my mind is made up, then that would surely lead to none other than you trying to maintain your ego. Andrew’s reasons for Gradualism would be a little bit easier to accept if you considered the other side in a discussion like this.

          • J. Polanco

            I am simply reacting to the impression you’ve made on me, nothing more. If you see condescension in my reply it’s because you want to, not because I have any contempt for you whatsoever.

          • Laurence Lu

            So then, wouldn’t that be the same from both our point of views? And don’t use the ‘[insert random negative thing] because you want to’ here. It’s simply what I get from your reply, from the response you have given me. To me, you are just another guy on the internet, and to you, well, more or less the same. It’s given that people think about things from their own point of view. Now, for the impression, if I gave you a negative one, that would be in the same way as you said it, and I paraphrase from my point of view: “Because you wanted the impression to be shown that way.”
            Now, may we return to our conversation about science and the validity of evolution and proof of a higher power, specifically the Christian God? I will reply as long as I have time, or until it seems unnecessary or deviated from the main topic to a useless flamewar. If what I say interest you (I see that you have followed me recently :/), I believe we should go about this like people who want to learn from others, not drug-addicted trolls who can’t control their ego and pick an online fight with fifty people that they can’t continue in real life.
            This is what Disqussing is for, we can go to Youtube for screaming at each other through the keyboard.

          • J. Polanco

            Alright then. As far as your concerned, does “The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” prove God’s nonexistence?

          • Laurence Lu

            *you’re
            More assuming questions?
            My questions to you are, as an indirect answer to yours, is, “Does the Bible’s vague prophecies that can be interpreted however you want it to being ‘correct’ prove that not only a higher power exists, but God, as in the Christian god? (Oh, and nice, naming your god “God”.) In addition, that proves the invalidity of the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory? It is a subset of evolution altogether, as we are still finding things out. Also, does that automatically bounce to creationism? Oh, for what every may or may not be out there (that would be an agnostic’s interjection), I wish somebody could build a time machine and travel back in time and forward in a parallel universe/time so at least one of us could end this speculative discussion. (Hey, I don’t think mine’s completely speculative, but it’s probably more or less the same with your statements. Notice how our bias puts both our statements as fact.)

          • J. Polanco

            How are Bible prophecies so vague they “can be interpreted however you want it to”?

          • Laurence Lu

            When you have people saying that they are the Second Coming of Christ [José Luis De Jesús], a Catholic pastor (I am assured that you will not make the mistake that Catholics are not Christians, hey, maybe you’re a Roman Catholic Christian yourself) saying that Obama will bring destruction and devastation to the country according to one of the Bible passages, an evangelist claiming that the Bible prophecized AIDS (oh, and with more Protestant denominations than sentences in the Bible [most followed by several hundred people with many denominations probably created last month], I have a feeling that people are going to run out of major diseases to cite in the Bible and are going to have to double back again, and the Bible prophesizing that apparently Jesus will return within this generation accompanied with a poll saying that 44% if Americans think that it is ‘absolutely certain’ or ‘probable that he will return within each of their lifetimes (not to mention that this has been and will be further interpreted as fact in the future), my bias and viewpoint on this is that the Quran could convince readers the same about Mohammed.
            By the way, I actually gave you three related questions in hopes that you’d answer at least one, but I guess we’re both putting it off for now. By the way, I hope you are not trying circumlocution with your responses, while our disagreement is evident, I don’t think evasion is the best answer.

          • Maxximiliann

            You’re speaking in vague generalities. Could you quote the specific Bible passages you find so vague they “can be interpreted however you want it to”?

          • Laurence Lu

            I am not sure that you thourougly read my long first sentence (it’s like twenty lines :o). I stated that the people who believe that the prophecies are correct are the ones who try to fit the prophecies back into the Bible, trying to find which ones that they can fit, not the other way around, when a passage prophecizes something that will happen, and it is clear and evident what it is predicting. Without that, anyone can fit any major event into one of the approximately 2,000 pages into the Bible. If there was truly a Bible passage that actually predicted what was going to happen and applied it to that certain event (the difference here is that people try to fit a certain event back into what apparently ‘fits’ the Bible.), and could not be interpreted any other way in other parts of the Bible, or things that may happen in the future (believe me, people, studying the Bible and the Quran, have set dates within the next 40 years as the end of the world), then you have me at least partially convinced in the historical accuracy of the Bible. But John and Peter, some of who wrote the Bible, were not firsthand witnesses of literally everything that happened. And at the time, without Internet (Hey, Millenials like me couldn’t imagine), documents weren’t nearly as credible. Hell, even today people get away with hoaxes. However, if the accuracy of that is proven, then you’ve got something else. God’s word (and not Allah’s or Yahweh’s stolen ones, lucky predictions, or other purposely ambiguous double meanings meant to serve as a wider net for possibility of correctness? And then, what about the problem of evil, the problem of hell, the potential weaknesses in any cosmological argument, how good things happen to bad people, how only belief in a god is a factor for going to heaven instead of facing eternal punishment for just decades of misconception about which god, if any, and without possible redemption? I am just listing certain things that would essentially have a skeptic like me to believe in the god of Christianity (Oh yeah, and let’s not forget, converting aliens wouldn’t work, other intelligent beings would have their ideas of the universe, and if it truly is infinite…well, I’d say an infinitesimally small portion of sentient beings wouldn’t be tortured for eternity. That is, the possibility of alien life is almost certain.)

          • Maxximiliann

            Just how are any of the samples of Bible prophecy I’ve given you instances of history being mendaciously presented as prophecy?

          • Laurence Lu

            Could you please not just repeat one question that addressed part of what I said two comments ago?
            Given that I’ve received five replies, I’m going to respond to the ones that are more relevant from now on.

          • Maxximiliann

            I don’t follow. This question is at the heart of our conversation. This is, after all, why you reject the claim that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, no?

          • Laurence Lu

            One more clarification: Inspired = Actual? or Inspired = Metaphorical.
            I strongly reject the claim that it is the actual word of God, and I am guessing that you do not take everything literally also, such as the condemnation of nonbelievers to Hell.
            Also, if it is not to be taken literally, why would an omnipotent being have to give us a 2,000 page compilation of 66 books and need us to decipher what the Truth is?

          • Maxximiliann

            Why do you reject such a claim? What evidence led you to this conclusion?

          • Laurence Lu

            Had a few hectic days in my schedule as a whole, so I couldn’t reply. I’ll reply to one or two of your responses that seem relavant.

            Anyway, the concrete evidence may not be there. (This is possibly due to the many portions of small implications leaning against the Bible being literally the word of God.
            This one, is a aggregate of many studies and much reasearch on the age of our planet.

            Can you cite impartial sources that the Bible is the word of God? If so, we could definitely compare. I am guessing that due to (I mean this is the best possible way) your experience in the existence of God and the age of the Earth, your age, and your years of conviction to this belief, I am not changing your beliefs. But you may as well be able to change mine. (Then again, maybe a Muslim will step in and I’ll be an adherence of Islam. By the way, opinions don’t actually have more weight than others, as the hypothetical Muslim will view yours in the same way you view his, and he will see your sources as you see his. In the end, it is up to subjectivity, despite both sides claiming objective truth is on their side.)

          • Maxximiliann

            Good to have you back my friend! :)

            Have you gotten around to perlustrating the evidence for the non-natural origin of the Bible’s prophecies I shared with you last?

          • Laurence Lu

            Well, the thing is, the Bible would have been written naturally, and some misunderstand it to be literally written by God. However, it was at most inspired, that I know. Quite possibly (yet from a skeptic’s side, I think it’s unlikely), someone could have been influenced by a higher power, but then again, until you have read the entire Quran, Torah, and other holy texts, you will be able to have a more or less perfectly impartial point of view of religion in general.

          • Maxximiliann

            You lost me. How does this answer my query?

          • Laurence Lu

            Indirectly, by implying that while I am not a Bible scholar, you aren’t either, as well as with the all other holy texts. One cannot be completely impartial, however, one can be less biased by reading all texts regarded by some as holy. I have not, but maybe you can, thus being more qualified than I do make an answer to your own question.

          • Maxximiliann

            First off, Elisha was on his way to a city infamous for its depravity, perversion and iniquity. Next, the KJV translation ‘little children’ is very misleading because the Hebrew term employed here (na’ar) had a broad meaning encompassing infants to teens to young men. For example the same word is used when describing the servants of soldiers (1 Kings 20:15) and of Isaac when he was about 25 years old (Genesis 22:5). Obviously, then, the term does not refer exclusively to tiny grade schoolers.

            Further, it’s highly unlikely that a group of young children would have been outside the city and out on the road unsupervised by their mothers. Moreover, it’s readily apparent that these were old enough to recognize Elisha as one of Jehovah’s prophets. He was, after all, wearing the prophet Elijah’s official garb.

            Another point to consider is if 42 of them were executed there were, in all likelihood, considerably more in the group. As such, this mob could have easily represented a lethal threat to this lone man of advanced age. Whether his personal welfare was under threat or not, Jehovah God came to his defense deeming the gang’s disrespect of Elisha as an affront on His very person. In short, this canaille of delinquents were duly judged mature enough to receive sentencing for their contumacious impudence for the Sovereign Lord’s representative.

            The lesson? Contumely towards your Creator and/or His appointed servants can be very, very bad for your health.

          • Maxximiliann

            You’re still not making sense. My question was simply, “Have you gotten around to perlustrating the evidence for the non-natural origin of the Bible’s prophecies I shared with you last?” I think either a “yes” or “no” will suffice.

          • Laurence Lu

            I don’t think this is getting anywhere. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ would be too simple of an answer.

          • Maxximiliann

            Like any written work, Almighty God composed the Bible with a particular audience in mind. Only these take full advantage of his divine wisdom and enjoy his blessings.

          • Maxximiliann

            Were you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts – in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine – available today in museums the world over?In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible’s. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it’s unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts.As such, any fears of tampering or errataare unwarranted.

          • Laurence Lu

            Makes sense in proportion. The fact that approximately 32% of the world’s population is Christian makes it so that other religions have less ‘factual’ weight. You’ve got copies of them, especially in Christian museums…so…? (Second largest religion clocks in at just 23%, third at 15% [of which 90% are in developing countries], so, I would want you to consider that while it is unlikely, more people = more affiliations of theirs presented as fact.

          • Maxximiliann

            You lost me. How is this germane to my rejoinder?

          • Laurence Lu

            Let me give you an example: The fact that, in a 2006 poll, 36% of Russians would vote for Stalin as a candidate. Let’s not forget his democide (up to 60 million killed by him, directly through execution or indriectly by starvation and *extremely* harsh rule). Being brought up just two generations after a murderous dictator (I am still using adjectives based on fact, not objective claims), the ones who survived his reign bought in to at least some of his principles. Now think of Mao Zedong. Even today, again, two generations after his rule, many Chinese people still believe that he was practically a God. After all, under him, land was irrigated and the life expectancy increased over 20 years (even though someone else could have easily done better). As a descendant of parents whose parents and grandparents suffered greatly from the “Great Leap Forward” (How ironic) and the “Cultural Revolution”, even I think he is at worst a controversial figure instead of a complete monster. Even though, under him 40-70 million died unnaturally, and much of my direct family has suffered, I guess we still have some partial residual beliefs from then.
            The influence of many, whether it is 2.3 billion people (Christianity’s adherence), powerful dictators, or other influential figures or events, you can always have things like ancient Bibles available in museums. How does this lead back to your query? Well, accuracy and popularity aren’t interchangeable. My Bible, I believe, mistakenly had Joseph replaced with Jacob/Israel several times. That’s only in the first book, Genesis. Mistranslation is evident.

          • Maxximiliann

            The Hellfire doctrine is a perverse mendacity that defames God. As a God of justice and love he would never prescribe infinite punishment for a finite crime no matter how wicked: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

          • Laurence Lu

            Interesting. But…58% say differently, at least according to this recent poll. I am going to guess that if you were brought up or influenced slightly differently, there’s a considerable chance you would believe that we are bound for Hell. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx

            I will assume you follow abolition of nonbelievers? If so, well, I have one or two Catholic Christian friends that believe so two.

          • Maxximiliann

            Do you really believe truth is established by fallacious argumentum ad populum rather than by facts and evidence?

          • Laurence Lu

            Hey, if objective or subjective evil exists, than your god either is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Or, as an alternative, nonexistent. That’s evidence for one of the three.

          • Maxximiliann

            In order for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

          • Laurence Lu

            “Proof” for and against the existence of a god is purely anecdotal (Even though to any person proposing the proof, it is most likely empirical.) But here goes, as one more of a basic argument instead of physical evidence.

            An absolutely perfect god cannot allow any evil, as that is contrary to perfection. Even if he were preparing us with hardships, with His infinite power, he would stop any possibilites of a negative event he need to prepare us for.
            By the way, with my crazy and uncontrolloble philisophical impulses and thoughts that almost literally keep me up for two hours a night, I view “perfect” as possibly one of the most ambiguous terms ever coined by Man. Perfect in every way? Perfect in every way of each individual way, in every possible dimension, idea, with being perfect in every way deriving infinitely from every perfect way? I don’t think such thoughts of people can be explained without paper, or possibly even with paper. I am guessing that this abstract pondering of mine only makes sense to me, as it would be to you if you were the one who was wondering about such things. Well, I tried. And digressed quite far.

          • Maxximiliann

            In order for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

          • Laurence Lu

            Please don’t just copy and paste your question, or go with the ‘Why?’ game. But then again, I could just provide the same answer.
            (I did understand correctly, right? You’re a world-renowed phsysiologist, not the professor who told you that Genesis was a much better explanation?)

          • Maxximiliann

            What answer was that?

          • Laurence Lu

            Precisely this one: “Proof” for and against the existence of a god is purely anecdotal (Even though to any person proposing the proof, it is most likely empirical.) But here goes, as one more of a basic argument instead of physical evidence.

            An absolutely perfect god cannot allow any evil, as that is contrary to perfection. Even if he were preparing us with hardships, with His infinite power, he would stop any possibilites of a negative event he need to prepare us for.
            By the way, with my crazy and uncontrolloble philisophical impulses and thoughts that almost literally keep me up for two hours a night, I view “perfect” as possibly one of the most ambiguous terms ever coined by Man. Perfect in every way? Perfect in every way of each individual way, in every possible dimension, idea, with being perfect in every way deriving infinitely from every perfect way? I don’t think such thoughts of people can be explained without paper, or possibly even with paper. I am guessing that this abstract pondering of mine only makes sense to me, as it would be to you if you were the one who was wondering about such things. Well, I tried. And digressed quite far.

          • Maxximiliann

            But, if you recall, your Atheism is “predominantly philosophical,” not evidentiary. In fact your staunch materialist biases preclude you from accepting contradictory evidence.

          • Laurence Lu

            All of that would be from your viewpoint. I think that, for you, it’s just anecdotal evidence that you take as empirical. To you, I’m just another person that has his bias due to his theological position. I think the same of you.
            This conversation needed to end somewhere, as we are just picking on the other’s perceived misconceptions. I will proceed to end it here, but if you have one last reasonable reply to make, I’d be happy to take it.

          • Maxximiliann

            What do you mean by “abolition of nonbelievers”?

          • Laurence Lu

            It is a doctrine taught by some denominations of Christianity. Believers go to heaven, nonbelievers get oblivion, or nothing, similar to how atheists believe every living being is going to end up (well, our physical forms cannot be destroyed, as far as we know, so maybe after the Earth is consumed, my converted energy might float off and gravitate towards a nearby planet, maybe…a few hundred trillion light years away?).

          • Maxximiliann

            This is consistent with what Jehovah God declared to Adam at Genesis 3:19, “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.””

          • Maxximiliann

            Consider the following:

            (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

            (2) Evil exists.

            (3) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

            (4) Therefore, God exists.

            (5) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

            That is to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

          • Laurence Lu

            Have you considered the sociobiological affects on the basic instincts that we have, which, in overwhelming consensus, we agree on?
            “(2) Evil exists.” Yes, but subjectively. I am pretty sure that The Holocaust, the democide of Mao (I am the great-grandson of several who starved to death and one who committed suicide during the authoritarian reign), the reign of Stalin, and both sides of the Crusades all believed there were doing the will of God, or at least a higher power (With the possible exceptions of Stalin and Mao, who were atheists. Adolf Hitler has been called an atheist, a Roman Catholic Christian, a believer in Nazi-affected Protestantism, a deist, and so on.)

          • Maxximiliann

            Again, I don’t follow. How is this at all germane to my rejoinder?

          • Laurence Lu

            I was pointing out argument for God, and what may potentially be wrong about it. The way I see it, if any one of them has a weakness, such as evil being assumed as ‘objective evil’, I would point that out.

          • Maxximiliann

            If who has a weakness?

          • J. Polanco

            Indeed. Special creation by Jehovah God Almighty -as revealed in God’s Word – refutes the myth “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”

          • Laurence Lu

            I think an educated Muslim or Jew would say the same about the specific god, and the refuting seems to be without too much backup for a viewpoint. I see a hint of vague circular reasoning, especially when you suggested that it was revealed in God’s Word. I made the other reply before this one, so I see you have answered one. However, it was slightly ambiguous to which one.

          • Maxximiliann

            Indirect evidence is frequently and reliably depended upon to ascertain the reality of the world we live in . As a case in point , it’s long been widely-used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion , hydrogen is present on it or that the our planet features an iron core . In like manner , creation as well as the reality that not a one of fulfilled Bible predictions has at any time been completely wrong constitutes unquestionable attestation for the reality of it’s composer , Jehovah God .

            This is, by far the most persuasive logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such an illustrious prominence. Considering the fact that it’s literally ** impossible ** for any person to foresee with complete precision what’s sure to occur from one hour to the next, there’s no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

          • Laurence Lu

            I don’t know if this is Deja Vu, but did you just copy and paste that? And by the way, “…not a one of fulfilled Bible predictions has at any time been completely wrong…”? Isn’t completely wrong kind of a low standard, and again, I assume you must have read parts of the Qu’ran and the Torah, but, being a Christian, I don’t think that’s unbiased at all.

          • Maxximiliann

            How do you mean? How is it a low standard?

          • Laurence Lu

            Wow. Five replies. I’ll try to get back to them, but I’m going to have to make my answers shorter.

            “How do you mean? How is it a low standard?”
            The way I see it, if something is not completely wrong, does not mean it is wrong in many aspects.
            Five hundred years ago, we were right about ourselves being in the middle of the universe. Our…observable universe, at least, given than observable is absolutely subjective.

          • Maxximiliann

            I see. Thank you for that clarification.

          • Laurence Lu

            Oh, and by the way, your constant questions don’t seem to be getting anywhere. I give you an answer, you keep asking questions. I know you are not trying to convert me, but asking for further justification of this is like asking ‘Why?’ to the simplest answer possible. I’m not going to automatically assume that you are a troll, but I’ll reply as long as your questions remain rational.

  • digitalalcohol

    Nice thoughts, pls let me know your comments on this one as the scientific proof of god :
    http://www.digitalalcohol.net/scientific-proof-that-god-exists

  • someyoungdude

    Yeah, great, antibiotics take a while to kick in. Soo.. Talia Castellano just died of brain cancer.. lots and lots of prayers went her way. guess it’s just part of “god’s divine plan” some live, some don’t.. ohhh “mysterious workings of the lord” I have my own evidence of god’s NONexistence.. watch… “god, do you exist?” hmmm.. no answer… guess there is some contradictory evidence for you.

  • HonestTruth

    God is in laymans terms a grown up Santa Claus. He is hope and used to explain things that we are unable to explain with our current knowledge. It keeps people in their place and to do the right thing. It sets morals for the common man. I am indeed atheist I wish for the human race to keep hope and morals but I wish for the removely of lies that come from religion. Also the extreme guide lines and ideas created from most religions.

  • tboggess

    I must admit I thought the author of this post might be a reasonable person who would be willing to engage in discussion concerning the existence of God… until he mentioned, “…the mistakes and delusions of this fallen world by millions upon millions through thousands of years…”. If you look at any evidence already in the mindset that this world and the people in it are “fallen” then you will never be unbiased in your assessment of that evidence. Psychological studies have shown time and time again how people are more likely to listen to and accept evidence that agrees with their position rather than evidence that does not. It should also be noted that had this person developed ulcerative colitis, prayed for healing, and was prayed for but was not healed, he would likely not have posted this an anecdote. Imagine how many people with ulcerative colitis there are who have not been healed despite fervent, sincere prayer. Unreliable evidence, like unreliable testimony in court, might as well not be evidence at all. Studies of prayer have shown that there is no correlation between recovering from a disease and being prayed for that was not also observed in a placebo control group. When I hear anecdotal evidence for the existence of God such as this, I always remember children in the Third World who are born with AIDS, or starve to death, or become infected with an atrocious parasite, or become innocent victims of a war they did not choose. It is easy to say you have been blessed when you live in the First World and have never had to worry about finding enough food to survive the night, or being kidnapped and forced into slavery, or a rocket bomb hitting your school. I can never accept that there is a God who answers prayers as long as there is this much suffering in the world.

  • Knight

    I don’t believe that God exists. Before that I believe in God but now I don’t. If there has a God then why he does not punish the bad people? Why he never justify? No one can say that he has meet a God. Even Prophets are also lying. What they said it’s not true. I never get any evidence that they are telling the truth. Bullshit all of these. I’m feeling very bad that I ever trust in Allah.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      In order for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

  • Aravind Radha Krishna

    So you are saying God is not an all-powerful being then since Satan is able to bring illnesses and deaths to His people? And God possibly cannot know the future since He created something that would oppose Him? If he does know the future, doesn’t he comply to the space-time continuum and is living within those bounds meaning that he has no control beyond the universe? And to counter your answer to her question; it is well documented of people dying of diseases in Africa and other 3rd world countries. A bit sad knowing they are born to die horribly. How can you account for that?

  • Michael Wright

    Self curing — really there isn’t any reason it has to be “magical”.

  • Steve

    Capital Letters!

  • shimo

    if you believe in God and you die and it’s not real it doesn’t matter but if you don’t believe in God and you die and he is real you’re doomed

  • justnotbelieve

    But… people from all religions praying to all manners of higher powers and gods can sometimes get what they prayed for, or appear to have a divine intervention in the path of life. Therefore, anything you said specifically about God is technically completely invalid, due to the fact other people in other sects praying to other ‘false’ gods had their prayers answered, even though they were praying to a god that you don’t believe exists.

    That’s one of the many problems I have with religion. That every religion person only believes in that god or set of gods, depending on whether they’re monotheistic or polytheistic. But if there are billions of people, all worshipping different gods, and they all think only that god (or set) exists, and all praying for things and occasionally having miraculous things happen after prayers… then don’t you think this whole believing in higher powers that there is no scientific proof of might be a little sketchy?

    • Joseph O Polanco

      You presume all gods are the same or that everyone prays to the true God.

  • Thomas

    And what about the thousands of people who, every day, fail to make such a miraculous recovery? Are their lives simply not as precious to God as yours is? What about they people who, much like you, prayed with friends and family to heal them and died the next day? Your one case is proof for God but the thousands of cases to the contrary are not proof against? I am sincerely happy that you made this miraculous recovery, but please do not twist its meaning to “prove” your beliefs.

  • izzy

    Thats cause he doesn’t use that same website, he said he’s a ‘young, undeserving lawyer’, so he’s probably got his own reference books and things and also ‘decent legal definition’ is a hyperlink to the website where he got the definition…

  • Kumar

    Because you got a free fish tank god is real? WOW! You have successfully converted me bro!

  • Muhil

    God is not in the form of any Statues. It is inside of us everyone. It is love, Help, Need, Kindness, Emotions e.t.c. Ex.:If you need a help and anyone helps you, he/she is god. (you are in need, if anyone fulfills your need or helped then he is God not a Statue, the credits and your thanks should go to him not to a statue). Some people says that god is there but invisible. No god is everywhere in the form of Human beings. We are having the God near by us, beside us, infront of us but still we are searching???!!!!

  • Steve Holt

    Just because you were healed inexplicably doesn’t mean it was God. I could claim that an invisible pink unicorn helped me recover from my anxiety disorder. This is not evidence. This is something out of the ordinary happening and you claiming it is a supernatural creature. Also your friend Ruth sounds a little delusional.

    • Joseph O Polanco

      it doesn’t mean it wasn’t God either. Unless you can prove conclusively that it wasn’t. Can you?

  • Joseph O Polanco

    1. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    2. You claim God absolutely does not exist.

    3. You have limited and incomplete knowledge.

    4. It’s possible God exists outside your knowledge.

    5. Therefore you can ‘believe’ God does not exist, but cannot prove it.

    6. Therefore your claim can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    “The vulgar modern argument used against religion, and lately against common decency, would be absolutely fatal to any idea of liberty. It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should really be true.

    The argument would appear on the face of it to be illogical, if anyone nowadays troubled about logic. It would be as reasonable to say that because some people thought the earth was flat, and others (rather less incorrectly) imagined it was round, and because anybody is free to say that it is triangular or hexagonal, or a rhomboid, therefore it has no shape at all; or its shape can never be discovered; and, anyhow, modern science must be wrong in saying it is an oblate spheroid. The world must be some shape, and it must be that shape and no other; and it is not self-evident that nobody can possibly hit on the right one.

    What so obviously applies to the material shape of the world equally applies to the moral shape of the universe. The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

    ― G.K. Chesterton

    • UWIR

      That quote is absolutely absurd. Where are the millions of people who think the earth is triangular? Furthermore, the earth quite clearly has some shape, while not only the question of which religion is true, but whether any of them is true, is in doubt. If you’re going to offer up an analogy, you should at least try to find something that’s at least close to being analogous. Finally, astronomy does not concern itself with a designer. Religion not only says that there are certain truths, but that there is a being intent on revealing those truths. Thus, the fact that there are a multitude of other sects, all claiming to have received the correct revelation, all but at most one of them being deluded, does constitute quite compelling evidence against the hypothesis of a higher being attempting to enlighten us.

      Suppose there were hundreds of different ideas of what shape the earth is. And suppose that there were no scientific evidence for any of them; each of them relied merely on the weight of popular opinion. Then there would be no good reason for choosing one over the other, and it would be quite reasonable to say that one should not commit to any particular one, as the chances of the particular one chosen being correct are tiny. It would also be quite reasonable to say that while perhaps one thinks that one has good reason for one’s particular beliefs, others believe that they also have good reason, and so perhaps that should give one pause.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Non sequitur. That’s like attempting to claim the global presence of hundred dollar superbills makes it impossible to distinguish between them and genuine legal tender.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of a Creator.

  • ahermit

    I’m glad you’re well. I’m sorry your God apparently doesn’t care so much for all those who still suffer in spite of their prayers…

  • fabuladeum

    rubbish utter rubbish, peer reviewed, recreatbale, testable scientific evidence, that sll I will accept.

  • Greg McGunigall

    To not believe God, you are lying to yourself and you’ve become Satan’s lapdog. There’s no such thing as atheist. I gather it’s more of a label to stop God intervening and blessing your soul. Try inviting God into your life before calling yourself an atheist, you’ll then understand there’s no such thing as an atheist! God bless 

  • Jacque Bernadette

    Wonderful! I had an amazing experience while waiting to have 2 Open Heart Surgeries (OHS). I have only shared this with my husband, daughter and a few others. And yes, I’m sane and I DON’T do drugs or hallucinate! For a year before my surgery, I would wake up sometimes during the night. There would be a ‘light’ in the room where I could see the form of the dresser across the room or my bedside table. Not a bright light where you could see everything in the room. We live in the country and there was not a light coming in from outside. A few different times I also saw a person or 2 people at the foot of my bed. This happened for a year and I had never had that experience before or after my surgeries. It gave me incredible comfort and a sense of peace that I had never experienced before. I looked forward to this and I truly miss them. When I went through my OHS in 2007, I was completely at peace, with no fear, no anxiety. I had memorized Phil. 4:6-7 and rested on this verse. I was a believer before this experience and still am a Christian. I KNOW without a doubt that God exists. That He cares about us. God loves us and wants only the best for us. But we need to do our part and seek after Him. He won’t force His will on us.

  • Rahul Parmeshwar

    Praise Be To the Lord

  • bluegrandma52

    God is not the candyman, who grants every child’s wishes. He is our Father. Like all fathers, He wants us to learn to be like Him. We are here to do that, and we can’t if He fixes everything and makes it easy for us. We have to learn to love unconditionally, care for and help one another, strengthen each other and learn to love as He does. All that takes work; sometimes He obviously helps us through our trials and sometimes He seems to be standing back, letting us learn on our own. But He is always there, no matter how bad or horrible or painful we find it. One of the reasons Christians tend to be happier and more content with their lives, no matter how rotten they seem to be from the outside, is because they know this, and they know Him. He comforts us when we are sad and lonely, and supports and sustains us when we are in pain. We are all on a journey, the second act of a three act play. Nothing that happens here is truly the end, especially death.
    Those who jeer and dismiss our faith don’t understand this simple fact: we don’t have to “prove” that God exists, nor do we have to justify our faith in someone they can’t see. He is evident in every sunrise, in every child newly come from Him, and in the face of every one of His children, no matter how old. I see Him, and His love, in every miraculous breath I take. I should be dead, but I am alive because of His intervention. I know that as surely as I know my own name, as surely as I know Him.

  • Michael Hunt

    How about this. Maybe god isn’t as ALL powerful as you would think. Powerful yes but not infinite. Maybe he cannot look on absolutely everyone at the same time. Maybe he picks and chooses favorites. Yes, maybe god IS an asshole. It would explain why we have so many douche bags. Maybe god isn’t finished creating. Maybe what we see is just a side effect. If god does exist I dont think he is quite the same as the one in our stories. It could be why evolution is set to create your own way of survival. Heck maybe its all a game to him to keep him busy.

  • Christian Vela

    First off i will start by thanking the good lord in heaven for everything he has done for me and thanking him for all the blessing he has givin me in my life.What i am about to say i have never told anyone but the close circle of friends and family i hold dear out of fear becouse whenever i share this story i cry im sorry lord for holding it in for so long.
    In 2001 i was outside of my house drinking a vanilla coke talking to my neigbors about how it tasted diffrent but kind of the same when i was struck with 9 bullets from a ak47 from some very angry people becouse it so happend that they were lookin for my neighbor and shot me instead.The events after that i do not know becouse i was no longer part of this world. I rememberd taking my last breath as my father held me in his arms and thinking how i never thought my life would end this way(btw i was 18).As i layed in my fathers arms the second i couldnt breath i closed my eyes and waited for the end. Soon my mother and fathers crying grew further and further away and littel by little i started to hear beautiful chanting coming from all sides of my ears.it was the most beautiful singing i have ever heard in my life and it seemed to get closer and closer to me i closed my eyes out of fear becouse i didnt know what was going on (btw i was an athiest i didnt belive in god i believed in science)when from my eyelids i started to see light.I opened my eyes and what i saw was amazing.I was in a beautiful room of white light with gold symbols written on the walls i couldnt belive it the other amazing thing was i could move i could breath i was whole again but i was scared becouse being an atheist i finally realized i was wrong all along.

  • Christian Vela

    When i sat in this room in this white bed i felt like if i had awaken from a dream like if my whole life up to that point was nothing but a beatiful dream. I was barefoot i walked up to these orbs floating and i could see small planets each diffrent from the other and i wondered is that where i had come from? As i stood looking on i could hear the beautiful chanting coming back louder and louder untill it sounded like a roaring orchestra music that is when i first heard from God.when God spoke nothing else mattered everything stopped for him his word is universal and he speaks to your soul.He asked me “CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE NOT BELIEVED IN ME YET I HAVE SENT SO MANY TO SAVE YOU.I started to cry becouse i knew i had done wrong the bible was true i had sinned thinking nothing would happen yet I was here with God Himself in his presence.
    then the lord said THE LAWS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME AND BY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE YOU WiILL BE JUDGED BY.I started crying becouse i didnt know what was to come and then the lord spoke again CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE SINNED MANY TIMES IN YOUR LIFE BUT BY NOT BELIEVING IN ME AND NOT ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS WAS YOUR BIGGEST SIN FOR THAT YOU WILL BE IN THE FIRST HELL and the lord pointed at the first planet a very dark place from what i could see.

  • Christian Vela

    The lord showed me the first second and third planet in front of me the lord said ,THE FIRST PLANET IS OF DARKNESS NO LIGHT ENTERS HERE THE SECOND PLANET OF OF DISEASE WHERE ALL DISEASE COMES FROM AND THE THIRD IS OF FIRE WHERE NO SOUL SHALL LEAVE.I cried and cried for i was being sentenced to hell the first hell would be my new home and i cried so much i though i was screaming then the beautiful room started to shake and it started going down, down like a elavator going to the ground floor.I was crying closing my eyes on the way down and it finally stopped and opend my eyes and i was in a diffrent room.This room was old and had a horrible smell the walls were pelling off and there was a window were you could see the blackest night with no moon to light it. As i was sitting there i heard a door open and all of a sudden people of every shade of color started walking into this ugly room.Some i couldnt understand others i heard crying and cursing.i overheard this older lady speaking she said “why have you done this to me i have went to church everyday why have you sent me here” then started cursing and swearing like ive never heard before.I was frightened by the tough crowd that came into the room and was in the corner by myself When the spirit of the lord came over me and i fell to the floor and started praying,praying for the lord to come save me.

  • Christian Vela

    As i prayed on the floor crying asking the lord for forgiveness i realized the room had become suddenly still everyone had stopped talking i looked up for a second then went back to praying on the floor by the time they knew what i was doing they started yelling and screaming spitting on me and cursing He cant save you here they said your wasting your time.I ignored them all crying for salvation for a chance to redeem myself to become a better person to follow his laws to spread his word that all humanity may learn that he is the truth that GOD IS REAL.As the yelling and screaming became kicking and punching and i stood my ground praying for the lord GOD to save me. Time suddenly stopped everything stopped i saw a man walk in the room and he said Christian you are saved the lord has given you your life back everything will be as new you will not feel pain or agony when you come back spread the word of the lord for he is mercy.I was overjoyed but scared becouse i was still in the same room.As the man walked out of the room time cam back but all of a sudden nobody could see me i saw them but no one saw me.i sat in my corner and watched as everyone left the room thru a huge door and into the dark of darkness they went the blackest i have ever seen the door remained opened and i was curios what i would find then a voice in my head said IF YOU CROSS THOSE DOORS YOU WILL NEVER COME BACK then i stood in my corner and waited untill i fell asleep.

  • Christian Vela

    When i awoke i was in a diffrent room what looked like a jail cell with a bed and walls and a gate.When i looked outside i saw other cells and i saw an old man walking slowly by the cells.I did not speak and sat down and waited for what seemed like days and weeks i thought where am i what is this place and a voice said you are between death and salvation you will wait for the time to come for you to rise.Everyday i waited at my cell everyday i thought lord please dont forget me here.Then i realized that everyday something new was in my cell.One day i strated to see writings the next i saw a window that i could see darkness.then i saw a tree a tree outside my cell the next day i finally saw light thru my cell with the tree.I was overjoyed to see light when god spoke once more to me HOLD THE GRAIL TO YOUR LIPS AND YOUR LIFE WILL BE RESTORED.I saw a beautiful cup on top of my cell by the door and i tried to reach it as hard i could.I couldnt reach it and i tried and tried but it seemed impossible i prayed to the lord to help me reach it and the answer came .I had the grail all along i just had to imagine puting it in my mouth and drinking from it and drank from the grail i was actually doing it and i feel asleep once more.When i woke up i saw beautiful light and the tree and the room was beautiful again and i saw my brothers come and with my mom and i was so happy and i asked them what are you guys doing here.

  • Christian Vela

    I asked my brothers and mom what had happend and how happy i was to see them my dad came in later and i hugged him and asked him were i was he said your at the hospital UMC TRAUMA CENTER.I was happy to see them all then went back to sleep when i awoke my beatiful room was gone no more windows with the tree and i was in a hospital room with wires everywhere and a breathing machine i did not like (it went all the way down my throat) i awoke and immediatly tried to take it off and the doctors came in and held me down and i went back to sleep.when i awoke again i started talking to everyone and asked my family about the window they said i never had one.I was awake one full day talking and laughing with my family and the doctors came in and i asked them for water i was so thirsty they looked at me like i was crazy and gave me a wet rag to suck on this seemed odd to me so i did then i keeped asking for wet rags so they asked me if i could take a drink i said yes i felt great so they all looked on as i drank from a small cup and i said that was the best water i have ever had and they all laughed.What i cam to find out was i was in the trauma center for 30 day i had gotten shot 9 times but the bullet on my chest had damaged my lungs and exploded inside me (it was hallow point bullets) I was dead on arrival and they got my heart to start beating again so i was on life support the whole time.

  • Christian Vela

    While on life support they had told my parents i would not live that i was brain dead for not being alive for a long time and that they were going to pull the plug.My parents refused to give up on me and prayed without stop for me to live.They met with my parents to make funeral arrangements the day before i awoke.Thier was one doctor in that hospital that gave my parents hope may god bless him wherever he is.I was in the hospital a wooping 1 week before i was send home i didnt have anything wrong with me a guy who was brain dead had walked out ALIVE AND WELL this is the power of our LORD GOD in heaven his mercy is with no end.As for me i try to be the best person i can be and talk to god everyday for without him i would have nothing and wouldnt be here.So please i beg you all belive in the LORD IN HEAVEN for he is real and has so much mercy for us sinners We are not perfect but thats ok as long as we pray believe in him and follow his examples and above all LOVE each other WE CAN ALL BE SAVED AMEN.

  • Zane

    What’s the point in arguing? Just believe in what you believe. I’m a Christian and I’ve no room to judge on what anyone believes or does. No one does. Don’t cram your belief, or lack thereof, down someone’s throat. Just seek what you want. If God exists, we’ll be with him, or be able to redeem ourselves. But God or no God, virtue should remain amongst us.

  • Krull

    you missed your lie in the prayer, bro


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X