Prove that God Exists with a Public Test

Prove that God Exists with a Public Test September 24, 2018


Perhaps you’ve read Jesus saying, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test” (Matthew 4:7). Forget that—God is happy to be tested.

The prophet Elijah from the 9th century BCE organized a public competition between his god Yahweh and Baal (1 Kings 18:16–40). On Baal’s side were the hundreds of his prophets, and on Yahweh’s side was only Elijah, Yahweh’s last prophet. The test was to see which side could get his god to light a sacrificial fire, and all of Israel was summoned to watch.

The priests of Baal called on their god all day with no effect. Elijah taunted them, suggesting that maybe Baal was deep in thought or out for a moment or sleeping.

When it was Elijah’s turn, he made the demonstration more difficult by having his sacrifice and the wood underneath soaked in water. He then called on Yahweh, and fire from the sky consumed the sacrifice, wood, water and even the stones of the altar.

Don’t you miss those days, when God would make clear that he existed with an awesome demonstration of power? God may be kinda cute as the shy nerd whose action in the world today looks just like no action at all and whose religion looks like an ancient superstition that evolved into a crazy-powerful global empire, but don’t you want a demonstration to show that he actually exists? Wouldn’t you like to resolve those doubts for good?

A new test for Yahweh

No one today demands a Yahweh vs. Baal contest because those who thought that Baal was real have died out. But what about Yahweh vs. science? Science does exist, and positive results from science and technology pop up daily to embarrass Yahweh. True, science isn’t omniscient, though it does get a lot right. Our modern technology-rich society admits to science’s power: it was science that eliminated smallpox, produced anesthesia, and created the airplane, internet, and GPS. Science makes life safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

In response, we’ve learned nothing new about the world from Yahweh. We get nothing but handwaving. Christians’ use of technology should taunt them, since it makes clear how their lives have been improved by science, not by revelations from Yahweh. It’s almost like society takes far better care of people than Yahweh does. Superstition and supernatural belief were what people had before science, but now we have something much better. Yahweh should’ve gone the way of Baal, since he has nothing to point to in the making-life-better department.

If Yahweh worship were a custom, just a thing people do to give them comfort or a sense of community, that would be fine—it’s easy to see that Christianity delivers that. But Christianity goes far beyond this, and its bold claims are measurable. For example:

The Lord will keep you from all harm—he will watch over your life (Psalm 121:7).

The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles (Psalm 34:17).

A public challenge

Inspired by Elijah, I propose a test of Yahweh vs. science. And I know the perfect loudmouth to be Yahweh’s advocate: Pat Robertson. Pat is fresh off his victory of rebuking hurricane Florence, demanding that it steer away from his home in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He demanded, “Hurricane Florence, we speak to you and we command the storm to cease its forward motion and go harmlessly into the Atlantic. Go up north away from land and veer off, in the name of Jesus.”

It didn’t go “up north away from land” but hit the U.S. coast in North Carolina, eventually causing 45 deaths and $38 billion in damage, but that didn’t stop Pat from taking credit. His university campus and holy satellite ministry are okay, and that (apparently) is all he cares about. He said about this hurricane, which was never expected to directly hit Virginia Beach anyway, “This is a miracle ladies and gentlemen. . . . When we pray, God does miracles.”

I would’ve judged Pat’s prayer experiment as a complete failure. Wouldn’t a miracle be more like the hurricane poofing out of existence? But no matter. If Pat is convinced that God listens to him and does public miracles, then Pat is our man.

Pat Robertson, I challenge you to a contest, a public Elijah-vs.-the-priests-of-Baal type contest. I’m open to the specifics. For example, we could look forward. The resolution of open scientific questions could be the prize, something like this: “Attention, scientists and priests! The first group to explain where life on earth came from, with evidence to back it up, wins!” Or maybe explain why there was a Big Bang or why we dream or what the universe is made of.

Hilariously, many Christian apologists will say that they’ve already answered some of these. They have answers to where life and the universe came from—God did it. The problem is, of course, that they have no evidence. They’re simply saying that they can reshape the clay of their religion to be compatible (more or less) with what science says, which counts for nothing.

Practical problems are another class of forward-looking challenges. The contest could be a race to demonstrate how to make a room-temperature superconductor, how to get electricity from fusion, or how to eliminating cancer.

Or, we could look backwards at things science has already done: “Science can put a computer on a silicon wafer; Yahweh, beat that,” or “Science has eliminated several diseases from the earth; Yahweh, beat that.”

The fact that these questions themselves came from science, not Christianity, emphasizes what an underdog Christianity would be in this contest. But a guy who actually thinks that he disciplined a hurricane that later killed dozens and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage might be just the one to think that he can demonstrate God’s power in the domain of science.

How about it, Pat? You’re quick to look for a chance to publicly demonstrate God’s power. Are you ready for the big leagues?

Oh, and I’m eager to hear what stakes you propose for the winner. Remember that, in the original Bible story, every priest in the losing worldview was killed.

All we did was claim to speak for God
and suddenly we’re held to a higher standard?
SMBC’s interpretation of priests’ response
to Catholic child sex abuse scandal

.

Image via Wikimedia, CC license
.

"The objective morality of the Bible is subject to the position of the earthly location ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."
"Total crap. Your point utterly fails if you have to concede that the one thing ..."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."
"[...] and for scientistic materialists it might all look the same, like how biology and ..."

Why Not Call What God Does ..."
"Interesting factoid Fun fact: More straight people engage in anal sex than gay people.FTFY"

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • igotbanned999

    I thought of this too, but with a redo of the original contest: The Christians pray to God to light their fire, while we light ours with electricity and gasoline.

    • epicurus

      “Come on baby light my fire, try to set the night on — FIRE ! YAH!”

    • Ignorant Amos

      Lasers…this is the 21st century…set phasers to combustion.

    • Yep–that would definitely be one of the possibilities.

      Maybe I should’ve set the terms of the contest, but I wanted my ol’ buddy Pat to have a say.

  • epicurus

    Over the years, having read Christian apologists and those who would defend biblical inerrancy, I can’t see them admitting defeat in a contest. They would always find a way to spin the results, and dispute the evidence, or even what constitutes evidence. Whatever it takes.
    Still, it would be nice to watch that blowhard Robertson lose, even if he wouldn’t admit it.

    • Ignorant Amos

      The most die hard, or the more stupid Christians, struggle on this issue. Without a doubt.

      But there is plenty of evidence that more sensible religious people can be convinced and accept defeat in the contest…most of us were once religious to varying degrees, but had to admit being defeated, if that’s how ya wanna put it…hence there being so many atheists around these days.

      • epicurus

        Fair enough

      • Pofarmer

        I think many of us were honest enough to defeat ourselves.

  • RichardSRussell

    It’s kind of ironic that both religion and science got their start from the same (evolutionarily advantageous) desire to explain the world around the observer. The difference is that, at some point along the way, religion got stuck on the answers they’d already come up with, while science kept challenging its tentative conclusions as more evidence became available. (Of course, they also went out looking for more evidence as well. Maybe that’s the real difference.)

  • We haven’t had any good miracles in 2000 years, and now we have technology to record and measure them! I think we are overdue for a bigger miracle than helping Auntie June find a close parking space at the mall

  • MadScientist1023

    You kind of have to wonder if that was really water Elijah dosed the wood with. Maybe Elijah was really a chemist and he got the wood to ignite by dousing the wood with some chemical. Or maybe he hid a chunk of potassium in the fire that ignited when he doused it with water.
    Assuming, of course, the story isn’t a complete myth to begin with.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Of the three, the later is most probable. But at least the other two are plausible…far more plausible than YahwehJesus did it anyway.

    • So then a kind of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court thing.

      • MadScientist1023

        Basically. It’s certainly more plausible than some deity doing it, especially when one considers how easy it would be to dupe a crowd that poorly educated.

        Religious figures weren’t exactly strangers to using science to dupe people. I read somewhere that African shamans would build up an immunity to snake venom by essentially vaccinating themselves. Then they would wow people with their ability to handle poisonous snakes.

        Of course, it’s a little hard to imagine there was an entire team of Baal players (couldn’t resist) who showed up thinking they could get it to work. A couple idiots who believed their own hype, sure, but hundreds seems pretty implausible.

        • Tangent: if a super-smart alien race came here and said that they were gods, we couldn’t tell that they were lying, since (as Asimov noted) sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

          When a Christian challenges me with, “So then what evidence would get you to accept that God exists?” I can point to a heckuva lot of evidence that should be here but isn’t, but I can’t actually answer their question. How could I tell it wasn’t aliens?

        • MadScientist1023

          Yeah, that one is a bit of a sticky one, but it’s a stickier one when posed to a person of faith. Materialists can simply define a god as a being of immesurable power and knowledge, concur that the alien forf the description, and then critically evaluate any of their specific claims, like that if an afterlife. The person of faith, however, is going to be faced with a being of immesurable power is *their* god, which is a trickier question.

        • MR

          Tangent: if a super-smart alien race came here and asked for evidence of God, what evidence would Christians give them?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Duh…the same shite us not so super-smart alien race that already live here, that the fuckwits have give us. No wonder why are we atheists are in the least convinced that a super-smart alien race…given the evidence…or lack thereof. Because it’s mindwankery of the highest order…and ya don’t need to be a super-smart alien to work that fuckwittery out.

          Apologies…imbibing alcohol in process.

        • Finally! Objective third parties that Christians might listen to.

        • Nah – these aliens are clearly unsaved – how could they be objective? 🙂

        • BeeeRad

          I highly doubt they’d listen, choosing instead to naively proselytize to the aliens in the hope of saving their alien souls, then opening fire.

        • Joe

          You may be overthinking things, most Christians are convinced by a guy in a suit talking out of an old book.

        • RichardSRussell

          Actually, it was fellow SF writer Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008), not Isaac Asimov (1920-1992), who formulated what’s become known as Clarke’s 3rd Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

          We also have this corollary from the Skeptic Society’s Michael Shermer: “Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.”

          For completeness, here are Clarke’s 1st 2 laws:

          “#2: The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”

          “#1: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

          Asimov did get into the fray with his footnote to the latter: “When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.”

        • Jim Baerg

          The technology – magic quote is from Arthur C. Clarke.

        • Phil

          God is a white, male with a beard. Aliens are green, big eyed with penchant for anal probes. So if he has an unnatural interest in your ass then he is an alien… er or a Catholic Priest.

        • Or maybe an evangelical something-or-other. Rated R for idiocy.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF19XWWyREE

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hypothetically speaking…

          An omniscient god would know what evidence it would take to convince me of its existence.
          An omnipotent god could supply the evidence it would take to convince me of its existence.
          And an omnibenevolent god would want to supply that evidence it would take to convince me of its existence.

          But gods work in mysterious ways don’t ya know?

          Or just don’t exist.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s Arthur C. Clarke who said that, I think.

        • Thanks.

        • A couple idiots who believed their own hype, sure, but hundreds seems pretty implausible.

          The Bible passage says it was 450, which was every single one in Israel. So when Elijah won and killed them all, there were none left. The Baal religion (in Israel, anyway) was gone.

        • eric

          I agree that the story is somewhat implausible. Frankly it sounds more to me like the Israelis killed them and then retconned a justification for it. “Well, you see, they demanded we make this bet with them…”

      • eric

        Con men in 500 BC were just as smart as con men today, albeit without or education. And honestly when you think about it, most religious-type con men are using pretty low tech tricks. Breatharians just eat in secret; Benny Hinn used sleight of hand and (IIRC) cat organs, faith healers can use a secret assistant or just power of suggestion. Even Popov’s ear radio trick could be quite easily done by an assistant giving him a pre-brief or some sort of signaling.

        And ancient audiences were aware of such tricksters. The wedding at Cana story in the bible intentionally includes details that are supposed to assure the reader Jesus wasn’t just a run-of-the-mill magician.

        So I have no problem thinking of some ancient godman palming a bottle of lamp oil or keeping a bit of phosphorus in oil in his robes just for the “God brings fire” act.

        • Hold on. Next you’ll be saying that Sathya Sai Baba actually was doing sleight of hand when he made things appear out of nothing.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      I do remember a telling of the story that implied the liquid was something a bit more flammable than water.

    • I was involved in a re-enactment years ago. There was lots of petrol involved. It burned well! 🙂

  • Bob Jase

    See the problem is that back in the OT Yahweh was the only acceptable god, yeah there were other gods (I’m looking at you Chemosh!) but only Yahweh was acceptable. Then came the NT and Yahweh found hisself sliced into old Yahweh and new Jesus cutting hios effective power in half. Of course Christianity spent almost four centuries arguing with itself over what it believed and finally they cut another chunk out of Yahweh and called it the Holy Spirit (what, no list of baby god names available?) so his power was only one third of what it used to be. Them came the Moslems who cut him into quarters by rejecting the first three pieces and making up a fourth one they call Allah.

    No wonder the old guy can only burn his image on toast or make a dog’s butt look like him.

  • Eric Collier

    Check out a novel posted on Smashwords that depicts just such an updated re-enactment of the biblical Contest on Mt. Carmel: “American Saints” by Paul Ziehe. It’s a trip!

  • Illithid

    I often ask Christians if the omniscient being with whom they claim a personal relationship can tell them what books are on my bookshelf. In order.

    So far, no.

    • Susan

      So far, no.

      Not much chance of them telling you what lies outside of the event horizon, then.

      Or how quantum gravity works.

      • Joe

        Or even something as simple as getting two different theists, independently, to tell you what God’s favorite breakfast cereal is.

        • Greg G.

          I was going to say Cheerios but Froot Loops are just as holey, and are a better description of his followers.

      • Tommy

        To which I would add: “Revealed truth my ass!”

  • Joe

    When people scoff at naturalism being an inferior worldview, I propose a simple challenge: They get to use any supernatural attack on me, no matter how deadly or powerful Any supernatural method of their choosing, spells, hexes, divine wrath, it’s their choice. Or they can even use metaphysics to demonstrate why naturalism can’t have more power than the supernatural. If that fails, I get to hit them in the head, only once, with an ordinary, basic hammer of the kind that you find in any hardware store.

    I haven’t had anyone accept so far.

    • Susan

      I get to hit them in the head, only once, with an ordinary, basic hammer of the kind that you find in any hardware store.

      It also works when they claim that without “object morality”, anything goes.

      Yahwehjesus doesn’t help you if you’re on the wrong side of the hammer.

      But many moral theories do.

      • Joe

        Yes, objective morality means you will get punished after the fact, it isn’t preventive any more than “subjective morality” is. So it is no more useful.

        • Susan

          objective morality means you will get punished after the fact

          Yahwehjesus morality means you will.

          No reason to call Yahwehjesus morality “objective morality”.

          It seems to be the subjective morality of an imaginary being interpreted through the subjective morality of anybody who wants to claim that their moral position is supported by what seems to be an imaginary being.

          The effects of a hammer seem to be much more objective than that.

    • Otto
    • Doubting Thomas

      You haven’t taken free will into account. Apparently god respects the free will of hammer wielders more than he respects the crania of Christians. You would think that this would make Christians doubt the all-loving part of their god. It doesn’t.

      • Joe

        There really are no tangible benefits to being in that particular club.

        • Doubting Thomas

          The membership dues for their magic social club are tax exempt. It’s at least a small perk of their club.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          I’d say there are, but none that aren’t clearly attributable to the members themselves.

    • carbonUnit

      Sounds like the Tantrik Challange from Indian TV, without the hammer.
      https://youtu.be/AfJPYzxHM4g?t=78
      I suppose the hammer isn’t really necessary. The opponent winds up looking like a rube. Hammer might cut down on the number of challengers though. 🙂

  • Len

    I think there’s a problem with the setting. PR is a self-promoting spokesman / prophet for his god. He’s not the last prophet, like Elijah was. Moreover, there are likely many people who consider PR a false prophet, only out to make a profit.

    The reaction of most (all?) believers when PR’s god fails to do anything will likely be that he’s not really a True Christian, so it’s not surprising that nothing happened.

    They’ll say that we have to wait until the really last Christian prophet shows up before their god does anything. So therefore, they win.

  • ThaneOfDrones

    When it was Elijah’s turn, he made the demonstration more difficult by
    having his sacrifice and the wood underneath soaked in water.

    Yes, it was definitely water and not kerosene. I believe that.

    • Guestie

      It was NOT kerosene. It was West Texas Intermediate crude. Even more of a miracle than water.

  • Robert Landbeck

    That TEST has already started! The terms o fwhich are already in the public domain and free. One which could now leave religious tradition staring into the abyss and prove humbling for secular speculation. And the winner, among other things, gets to prove and demonstrate the whole of religious history to be in error. So who has the courage to crack open history?

    The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

    Thus ‘faith’ becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His ‘Word’ of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.”

    So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists, and carries all the implications that suggests. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral, spiritual and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

    • Max Doubt

      “So who has the courage to crack open history?”

      Obviously it’s not you.

      “The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published.”

      You must have missed all the other wholly new interpretations over the centuries.

      “Radically different from anything else we know […] obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!”

      Total fuckin’ nonsense. If you have a way to objectively distinguish between the gods you imagine and any other figments of your imagination, bring it on. If you don’t, we already have a perfectly good term for figments of the imagination.

      “So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists, and carries all the implications that suggests.”

      Provide the objective evidence that a god or gods exist. Oh, and really really believing really really hard doesn’t constitute objective evidence.

      “Nothing short of an intellectual, moral, spiritual and religious revolution is getting under way.”

      I’m betting against it. You’re trying to talk the talk, and doing a pretty mediocre job of it, by the way. But you’re a very long way from walking the walk.

      “To test or not to test, that is the question?”

      Looks like the test is to see if you can send some hits to your blog. You’d probably do better with one of those almost-naked girl pictures with a headline like “You Won’t Believe The Awesome Thing This Girl Did In Her Kitchen!”

    • Can you summarize what “energon” is supposed to be? And justify any supernatural claims?

      • igotbanned999

        It’s what powers the Transformers, obviously

        • Ignorant Amos

          Robot’s in disguise…

        • E.A. Blair

          Well, apparently youre ignorant about the proper use’s of apostrophe’s.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lucky for me there’s a grammar cop in the house then, isn’t it? Thank you.

        • Blog comments have lots of typos, particularly mine.

        • Greg G.

          Don’t put yourself dwon.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that’d be rather harsh.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        I’m guessing this is Time-Cube deep…

    • Damien Priestly

      Ok, then just get God, Christ, whatever, to do that “change water to wine” test for me on a regular basis and you will have a believer right here !!

      PS: It has to be that top notch wine, a smooth Merlot maybe…please, not that swill the wedding Canaanites were drinking before Christ did his thing.

      • Robert Landbeck

        The changing of water into wine is an appropriate allegory as this teaching and religious conception describes and teaches a covenant of marriage. One that is confirmed by G-d by a direct intervenion into the nature world. Having already tested and confirmed the teaching for myself, I can say without question that there has never been a vintage this fine ever before.

        • Damien Priestly

          Sounds like you’ve been drinking too much of that wine yourself …

          For you, tell Christ maybe some Sparkling Grape Non-alcoholic may be more appropriate !!

        • Michael Neville

          No, you seem to be the one imbibing wine, if not partaking of something a bit stronger. What’s your evidence that the “loada ballix” (as Ignorant Amos so precisely and accurately described it) isn’t the result of a bad acid trip?

        • Robert Landbeck

          I think it was Schopenhauer who said: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
          This truth claim is still at stage one. When ecclesiastic feathers start to fly we’re at two. I’d double check the label of whatever your dinking. There’s a lot of theological counterfeit rot gut going around.

        • Damien Priestly

          Truth? “First it is ridiculed” you say …So Bozo the Clown was ridiculed…when do we get to the second stage where Bozo is “violently opposed” ?

        • MadScientist1023

          Yeah, you know what else gets ridiculed? Stuff that’s ridiculous to begin with. The Flying Spaghetti Monster idea is ridiculed, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. The sci-fi alien overlord BS of Scientology is ridiculed, but that doesn’t make it true. Flat Earthers’ ideas are ridiculed, but that doesn’t make them true. The idea that there is only one Olsen twin moving back and forth very quickly to fool the eye into thinking there’s two is ridiculed, but that doesn’t make it true.
          Even accepting your premise that all truth is ridiculed, it doesn’t logically follow that everything that’s ridiculed is truth. Plenty of falsehoods and bad ideas are ridiculed as well.

        • Robert Landbeck

          First off Schopenhauer made the observation and I would agree with you that his insight is hardly set in stone. But for truth claims that are contentious and unresolved over a long period of time, where competing factions have hardened into their positions, a truth claim that might possibly blow that status quo will always be contraversial, even ridiculous to many. In the case of the truth claim I posted about, this seems to fit the model rather well. The difference being that the question will not be settled by any opinion however learned, but by the direct evidence this teaching offers as proof of efficacy. And those like myself who have or are testing this teaching to discover the truth of it will be providing that confirmation.

        • ildi

          The difference being that the question will not be settled by any opinion however learned, but by the direct evidence this teaching offers as proof of efficacy.

          Bible quotes don’t count as direct evidence of truth claims about bible teachings.

        • Robert Landbeck

          I agree completely. The evidence I refer to meets all enlightenment criteria of scientific method. This new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence.

        • ildi

          The evidence I refer to meets all enlightenment criteria of scientific method.

          No such evidence is provided in your link.

        • Robert Landbeck

          Of course there is not ‘evidence’ at the link. What you’ll find at the link is a download of a new moral/ethical teaching that offers the instruction for the discovery of that direct evidence. This no an airport read but requires serious study. And then if the material inspires you, the ‘path’ for testing this insight your self is explained. I have already done so and it does exactly what it claims to do and more besides.

        • ildi

          What you’ll find at the link is a download of a new moral/ethical teaching that offers the instruction for the discovery of that direct evidence.

          There was no new moral/ethical teaching, it was the same Christian twaddle. I think you need to brush up on what evidence means when used in the context of the scientific method.

        • Max Doubt

          “This no an airport read but requires serious study.”

          I’ve studied for decades. Your god is powerless. How do we know? Because it can’t do anything outside your head. Every time I offer to compare my powers with the powers of people’s gods, the god believers scatter like roaches when the lights come on – the same way you bailed out on this discussion. You’ve got nothing and you know it; that’s why you run away.

        • Otto

          Quit referring to your evidence and scientifically do the work. If you are able to replicate what you claim you should be able to win a Nobel Prize, instead you post on an atheist website, that says all I need to know.

        • Greg G.

          Do you suppose that maybe that transcendent omnipotence may have actually told him that convincing the regular commenters at Cross Examined was the best way to propagate his message?

        • Robert Landbeck

          I posted to a discussion on ‘prove G-d exists’ and have put on the record that the means to do so now exists. So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof is now a reality, and carries all the implications that suggests. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way.

        • epeeist

          I posted to a discussion on ‘prove G-d exists’ and have put on the record that the means to do so now exists.

          So provide your evidence, show how it provides an explanatory framework and how good an empirical fit it has.

        • Otto

          These are all just baseless assertions. You say they are testable. So go out there and scientifically test them, explain your methodology, write your paper and submit it to be peer reviewed…ya know…do the work. It is not reality until you actually do so.

          All you have done is posted a link to a website that blathers on for a couple of pages and then asked you to download something…and who knows what we are supposed to download, it could be malware or a virus. I am not downloading something from what by all indications is a scam website. You have been asked to explain what you are talking about and you refuse to do it…so you come off like a loon to the rest of us.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          fuck your ‘god’…I blaspheme it here and ridicule you and it for an inability to demonstrate its existence.

          Until you can do better, why are you wasting our time?

        • Faith? How will that help us find truth when different people start with different faith positions?

        • Susan

          The evidence I refer to meets all enlightenment criteria of scientific method.

          What does that even mean?

          Please be specific.

        • Robert Landbeck

          It means a new religious conception now exits that completely changes the existing, historical faith paradigm, that skeptic and atheist and myself have so rightly derided; to a path of faith that leads directly to absolute proof of the Deity. And like scientific method, it begins with a hypothesis on the human condition, and then offers the means of testing the hypothesis, leading to the discovery of new self knowledge, that at the same time confirms the reality of G-d.

          There is no space here, nor would it be appropriate, to consider specific details of the teaching at this forum. For that, there is a download of the teaching at the link on my original post.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It means a new religious conception now exits that completely changes the existing, historical faith paradigm, that skeptic and atheist and myself have so rightly derided; to a path of faith that leads directly to absolute proof of the Deity. And like scientific method, it begins with a hypothesis on the human condition, and then offers the means of testing the hypothesis, leading to the discovery of new self knowledge, that at the same time confirms the reality of G-d.

          Meaningless word-salad.

          There is no space here, nor would it be appropriate, to consider specific details of the teaching at this forum.

          Ballix.

          For that, there is a download of the teaching at the link on my original post.

          Soliciting is bad form on internet forums.

        • epeeist

          Soliciting is bad form on internet forums.

          Especially if it includes requests for money…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Typical…a feckin’ snake oil peddler ffs.

        • Otto

          I didn’t click on the download…does it ask for money?

        • epeeist

          does it ask for money?

          Don’t know, I too avoided clicking on the link.

        • ildi

          It’s just pages and pages of bible quotes, etc.

        • Otto

          Why the need for a download I wonder?

        • ildi

          The god-virus probably works better that way.

        • Phil Rimmer

          But the initial concerns

          “Why is it not possible for humankind to progress beyond the tyrannies of militarism, terrorism, war, social injustice, destructive environmental exploitation and the political, economic and cultural hegemony that inevitably attempts to dominate every generation in its time?”

          are blindly wrong.

          Until you see that we have been growing the franchise of the suffering and then ameliorating that suffering with increasing effectiveness you cannot even begin to do what is needful and tackle not our collective natures but the natures of the kleptocrats, the exploiting parasites, for whom you, perhaps unwittingly, stooge.

          I asked for an hour of your time, so you could catch up. 58minutes actually.

        • MadScientist1023

          OK, well, when you have something that actually new to say, let us know. So far I haven’t seen a single thing out of you that’s anything but recycled Christian mumbo-jumbo.

        • Greg G.

          But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
              –Carl Sagan

          Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/carl_sagan_163043

        • Me, crazy?

          They said Isaac Newton was crazy! They said Albert Einstein was crazy! They said Charles Manson was crazy!

        • Greg G.

          I’m not crazy. My mother had me tested.

        • Yes, there is a lot of theological nonsense. If you’re saying that any supernatural claim is the truth, you’ll need to be careful to be on the right side of this issue by giving us sufficient evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s your interpretation of the nonsense…there are others.

        • Robert Landbeck

          For a start this is not ‘my’ interpretation. But the difference between this and all other interpretations throughout history, is that this is the only one G-d acknowledges, by a literal, direct experience and demonstration of transcendence power.

        • Ignorant Amos

          For a start this is not ‘my’ interpretation.

          your:- used informally to indicate all members of a group, occupation, etc., or things of a particular type.

          Meaning the particular group of eejits you are part of, that hold that particular interpretation, as opposed to all the others that don’t.

          But the difference between this and all other interpretations throughout history, is that this is the only one G-d acknowledges, by a literal, direct experience and demonstration of transcendence power.

          So you say…but until you can demonstrate otherwise, your word salad is a loada pretentious ballix….and special pleading ta boot.

        • Robert Landbeck

          If you’re not perpared to investigate further and test it for yourself, that’s your business.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Been there already…

        • Bob Jase

          Don’t you love how believers always assume that non-believers somehow haven’t heard of their god?

          Its not as if there was a way to exchange information almost instantly or anything.

        • Robert Landbeck

          Been where? You couldn’t possibly have even studied this material much less tested it for yourself, because there is a time element to the teaching that is impossible for you to have completed. If you can’t be honest in this conversation, please find another.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s all the same drivel….if you’ve a point to make, make it, don’t expect folk to go read reams of your mindwanking fuckwittery.

        • Robert Landbeck

          When you’re reduced to abusive language, as in your last comment, you’ve obviously lost the plot if you ever had it in the first place.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …abusive language…

          Spoiiiinng!

          “If you can’t be honest …”

          “…you’ve obviously lost the plot if you ever had it in the first place.”

          Ya don’t see the irony at all, do ya?

          Take yer tone trolling and shove it up yer arse.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          When YOU can’t summarize your position in a few bullet points, and make it attractive enough to convince people to follow you back to your lair, don’t blame US.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Out of the hundreds of thousands of religious schmoozers that claimed and claim the one true understanding, that we godless but curious folk have sampled, why should we begin to engage with your luck lustre pap if you can’t even apprehend the world honestly?

          Your failure to engage is all your own.

        • Max Doubt

          “You couldn’t possibly have even studied this material much less tested it for yourself, because there is a time element to the teaching that is impossible for you to have completed.”

          I’m a fast tester. I’ve tested your god in every objective way. It is powerless outside your own imagination. My powers are not so limited. What good is your wussy god anyway if we mere mortals can kick its ass in any contest?

          “If you can’t be honest in this conversation, please find another.”

          Says you – while ignoring relevant responses that make you uncomfortable. You should take your preachin’ to a religious forum. That’s where you’ll find a bunch of gullible rubes who might buy into it. You’re pretty much just like any other middle school religious fanatic who comes into this forum. Same old same old, juvenile, dishonest nonsense.

        • Otto

          You posted this crap in the past and I got to page 3 and it still did not get to anything resembling a point, I can only conclude you don’t have one.

        • Robert Landbeck

          If getting no further than page three is the measure of your interest then you may as well not have started at all. Overturning two thousand years of theological history and tradition takes a little more effort. Best you wait until others confirm it for you.

        • Otto

          You ramble for 3 pages saying NOTHING. How much time am I supposed to invest in what appears to be the musings of an internet nutcase?

        • Robert Landbeck

          You’ve already made your choice and that’s fine with me.

        • Otto

          I made the choice of not wasting any more time on your ramblings. Here is a tip, if you want to engage your audience say something relevant before the end of 2500+ words.

        • Robert Landbeck

          Good night otto.

        • Otto

          I read that to mean you have nothing of substance to offer.

        • Give us the Cliff Notes version.

        • Robert Landbeck

          To quote from the Divine Comedy:

          For as I turned, there greeted mine likewise
          What all behold who contemplate aright,
          That’s Heaven’s revolution through the skies.

        • Ah, there you go. Crystal clear.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why are you prattling worthless deepities?

        • ildi

          Did you provide the right link? Because that document did nothing to “overturn two thousand years of theological history and tradition.”

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz
        • Max Doubt

          “If you’re not perpared to investigate further and test it for yourself, that’s your business.”

          I’ve tested it. Turns out I am more powerful than your god. Far more powerful.

        • Robert Landbeck

          Come on Max. Can’t you do better than that? Because of time element intrinsic to the teaching you could’nt possibly have tested it. Can you not raise your game a bit and say something interesting, even worthy of a good conversation?

        • Max Doubt

          “Can you not raise your game a bit and say something interesting, even worthy of a good conversation?”

          Up my game? I’m already more powerful than any of your gods. It does bring up the question, what use is a god who can’t do anything outside your head? And I do understand why you’re reluctant to answer that. Makes you feel pretty silly to believe in a god that can’t even do what some stranger on the ‘net can do, doesn’t it?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/018d9075880fa729e0a61595800a6b259c3a2af784920b918da65f10a38caecc.png

        • Robert Landbeck

          Thus spoke Zarathustra . . . . and then died of insanity.

        • epeeist

          Thus spoke Zarathustra . . . . and then died of insanity.

          Except he didn’t, though Nietzsche did.

        • Max Doubt

          “Thus spoke Zarathustra . . . . and then died of insanity.”

          I accept your nonsensical babbling as an implicit admission that your god is a weakling puss, incapable of performing even the most menial of human activities. So far, in all my challenges to anyone’s gods, every person has puffed up and talked big talk like you are, while walking away with their tail between their legs… like you are. They have forfeited every single challenge. 100%. So when you can get your god to do something outside your imagination, you just let us know, ‘kay?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND have no right to *demand* ANYthing from us.

          Convince us or admit you’re lying or deluded.

        • You first. Give us a good reason to believe in whatever supernatural beliefs you hold.

        • BlackMamba44
    • Ignorant Amos

      What a loada ballix!

      • epicurus

        I think drugs are involved.

    • ildi

      So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists, and carries all the implications that suggests. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral, spiritual and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question?

      Nope, it’s the same o’, same o’!

  • Paul

    Sounds like Bob has a double standard. He knows there’s no such thing as proof when it comes to science. But he wants proof when it comes to God.

    We all have the exact same evidence – the universe and everything in it. What’s the best explanation of the evidence – God or nothing but natural, undirected processes? The better explanation is God.

    “it was science that eliminated smallpox, produced anesthesia, and created the airplane, internet, and GPS. Science makes life safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting.”

    Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian. God gave us brains with which to do science. There’s no conflict between science and religion. But there is a conflict between an atheist worldview and a Christian worldview.

    Atheist Vows To Live Without Any Scientific Advancements Made By Christians, Dies:
    https://babylonbee.com/news/atheist-vows-to-live-without-any-scientific-advancements-made-by-christians-dies

    • epeeist

      Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.

      And whose method was based on the ideas of induction documented by Aristotle, who wasn’t Christian.

      As it is Bacon’s ideas have been superseded by those of people like David Hume, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyeraband and Imte Lakatos. How many of these are Christian?

    • Michael Neville

      The universe isn’t evidence for your or any other god (remember there’s more gods than the sadistic bully you prefer). The universe is evidence for itself. So, got any evidence that your pet god isn’t anything more than figments of Middle Eastern, Iron Age priests’ imaginations? Of course you don’t because otherwise you’d be dumping this evidence in your post instead of pretending that Francis Bacon being a Christian had anything to do with the scientific method.

    • Sounds like Bob has a double standard. He knows there’s no such thing as proof when it comes to science. But he wants proof when it comes to God.

      I was using “proof” colloquially, as many do. I’m not looking for (nonexistent) scientific proof; for this experiment, I’d be happy with extraordinary evidence.

      What do you think we’d get if we tried it? Not proof, we agree. But do you think we’d get extraordinary evidence or just crickets? (And when you tap dance away from this, trying to avoid the question, ask yourself what that means.)

      We all have the exact same evidence – the universe and everything in it. What’s the best explanation of the evidence – God or nothing but natural, undirected processes? The better explanation is God.

      Wow—after that compelling argument, what can I say? I guess I’d say what anyone with a working brain would say: show me the evidence.

      Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.

      I’m missing the cause and effect in this statement.

      Oh, hold on—no, I think I get it now. You think Bacon made an important scientific contribution because he was a Christian. Is that it?

      Uh, yeah—you need to actually make an argument here.

      God gave us brains with which to do science.

      Is there a God? Then he gave us brains to use. When you and I are standing in judgment, which one of us demanded sufficient evidence before belief, and which one was content to accept pablum?

      Atheist Vows To Live Without Any Scientific Advancements Made By Christians, Dies:

      Point being . . . ?

    • Max Doubt

      “We all have the exact same evidence – the universe and everything in it. What’s the best explanation of the evidence – God or nothing but natural, undirected processes? The better explanation is God.”

      Natural undirected processes occur. There is, however, no objective evidence to support any claims that any gods exist or that any miracles or acts of magic have ever occurred. Something that cannot be demonstrated to exist outside your imagination is not a better explanation.

      “Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.”

      Big deal.

      “God gave us brains with which to do science.”

      Maybe I gave us brains. You don’t know. After all, as far as we can tell there is nothing the god you imagine can do that I can’t do, too. And there are several things I can do that your god quite obviously cannot. Your god has no powers outside your own head.

      “There’s no conflict between science and religion.”

      Well, sure there is. Science is a process we use to help us better understand the universe we live in. It is the only reliable process we have available so far. Religion is a social system built around the as yet unsupported claim that some magical being affects the workings of the universe.

      “But there is a conflict between an atheist worldview and a Christian worldview.”

      The Christian worldview has at its foundation the unsupported claim that some magical agent interacts with the universe. Atheism is hardly a world view since it addresses that singular claim by rejecting it.

      Go find a way to objectively differentiate between what you believe is a god and any other figment of your imagination. From outside your head we can’t tell the difference.

    • I hadn’t seen the Babylon Bee before. It’s a joke site, right?

      • “The Babylon Bee is a satirical evangelical Christian website.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee

        • Greg G.

          I think he referred to the article to point out Christian contributions like Pasteurization, which leaves God out of the process.

        • Guestie

          Otherwise it might be known as Yahwehization.

    • Flint8ball

      I’ll settle for evidence. You’re right, proof is too much to ask.

    • Ignorant Amos

      God gave us brains with which to do science.

      Bwaaaahahaha…why is there a need to do science in the first place?

      Why not just cut out the middle man?

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Exactly. The only reason we need rigorous tools like science and logic are because of how prone to error we are.

        It’s amusing how often theistic “evidence” leads in the opposite direction when viewed more closely.

      • Joe

        God also has magic at his disposal. Why don’t we have the ability to cast spells?

        • Greg G.

          Can you see octarine?

    • Damien Priestly

      Yes, another Christians did science — so Christianity is true, argument! So what do you thing of General Relativity…perhaps you think that is Jewish science?

      What’s the best explanation of the evidence? … Natural processes are always a better argument than God’s magic.

    • VaulDogWarrior

      .W cannotprove their isn’t a creator. Prove that their is and that this creator is Yahweh.

    • Doubting Thomas

      Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.

      Why do you think it is that Bacon never used the scientific method to test his religious beliefs?

    • Greg G.

      Sounds like Bob has a double standard. He knows there’s no such thing as proof when it comes to science. But he wants proof when it comes to God.

      Not proof, just reasonable evidence. The universe is not proof of God. It is proof of the universe.

      The church had lost so much knowledge that getting the thousand year old knowledge of the Greeks by way of the Muslims during the Crusades was a huge improvement. Even Copernicus was inspired by the writings of the ancient Greeks.

      But even the successful science by Christians is atheistic as it leaves God out of the equations. Science and technology took off exponentially when people stopped trying to explain things in terms of god thingies. The beauty of science is that it works for anybody when they leave religion out of it.

      • MR

        Responses like his are tacit acknowledgement that there is no reasonable evidence. They know.

    • eric

      Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.

      Algebra was invented by the arabs, but strangely I don’t hear you telling us it’s a reason to convert to Islam. Geometry was probably invented by the Babylonians, but you don’t use that to defend belief in Marduk as rational. Alchemy, the progenitor to chemistry, originated independently in both Egypt and China, yet you don’t consider that evidence in favor of their theologies.

      IOW you’re very selective about the “people of religion x invented this good thing, ergo religion x is a good thing” argument, applying it only to Christianity and seeing it as an invalid argument when used to support other religions. Which makes this argument cherry picking and therefore worthless, IMO.

      There’s no conflict between science and religion.

      There are different ways to define ‘conflict.’ I’ll consider three here; conflicts of claim, of practice, and of method.

      1. Conflicts of claim occur when science says “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old” and a young Earth creationist says “no it’s not, its only a few tens of thousands of years old.” Conflicts of claim can occur between religions and science, but don’t always. It depends on the religion and the sect. There are no conflicts of claim between some sects of Christianity and science, but there are conflicts of claim between other sects of Christianity and science. So you’re at best half right on this type of conflict.

      2. Conflicts of practice occur when a religious person says they can’t do the job scientists do, due to their religious beliefs. The closest example I can think of is the JWs being so opposed to fighting that they signed up to be test experiments in WWII instead. That’s a conflict of practice between soldiering and JW theology. When people like you point out that there are lots of scientists who are Christians, you’re pointing out that there are few or no conflicts of practice between mainstream Christianity and the day to day activities of a modern scientist. So you’re mostly right here.

      3. Conflicts of method are when two belief systems are at odds in what they consider valid methods for gaining knowledge. Science does not recognize revelations (either the individual’s, or some historical figure’s) as a valid form of knowledge or even evidence supporting knowledge. Revelation and introspection are, at best, hypothesis-generating mechanisms, but those hypotheses must then go through the regular gamut of testing before being accepted. So…if you’re willing to state that (your flavor of) Christianity does not consider revelations to be a valid form of evidence, then there’s no methodological conflict. Are you willing to state that? My guess is not many Christians would say this, so IMO there is a pretty fundamental conflict of method between science and Christianity.

      At this point it’s worth asking: if #3 really is a conflict, how can there be so many Christians who are good scientists? It’s because they wall off their religious beliefs from scientific criticism; they refuse to apply the methodological rules of science to them. On Sunday, the bible is the word of God and they proclaim the “We believe”s of the Nicene creed with true sincerity. On Monday, they go into the lab and consider no book to be evidence of a physical principle.

    • Joe

      He knows there’s no such thing as proof when it comes to science. But he wants proof when it comes to God.

      It’s best not to start the very first sentence of a post with an incorrect statement.

      Yes, the modern scientific method was started by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a Christian.

      Bonus point if you can show how these two things are related in any way whatsoever?

      God gave us brains with which to do science. There’s no conflict between science and religion.

      Illness is caused by demons.

      Illness is caused by pathogens.

      There’s a conflict right there.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      You ARE aware that the Babylon Bee is a *satire* site?

    • OccupyReality

      “…The better explanation is God.”

      Nope.
      {{“The theory that explains everything explains nothing.”}}
      Popper

      Show me a single scientist from Bacon to the present who used christianity to advance science.

  • skl

    “Or, we could look backwards at things science has already
    done: “Science can put a computer on a silicon wafer; Yahweh, beat that,” or
    “Science has eliminated several diseases from the earth; Yahweh, beat that.””

    Bible believers might counter with ‘Yahweh made something from nothing; science beat that,’ or
    ‘Yahweh made man from mud, science beat that.’

    • Ignorant Amos

      When was there nothing?

      • Taneli Huuskonen

        There was no then, then.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Exactly…that’s one hypothesis strongly considered…we don’t know a time when there was nothing. Time and something started together, maybe. As far as we are concerned, there has always been something.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6838c6hJ28

    • Otto

      >>>”Bible believers might counter with ‘Yahweh made something from nothing

      You mean the same people that swear up and down that something can’t be made from nothing…then claim it can.

      • VaulDogWarrior

        I guess they would counter by saying that God was the first cause. Science has no first cause.

        • Otto

          That does not address the issue that they claim ‘something can’t come from nothing’…and then they say it can. That issue remains.

          It is like saying people can’t shoot fireballs from their fingers…but wizards can.

        • eric

          Well it’s like saying my wizard can but all those other wizards are fakes who can’t.

          Then it’s like defending that claim by saying ‘we know this to be true because of a book my wizard wrote telling the world he’s the only true wizard who can shoot fireballs.’

        • Otto

          “Thou shalt have no other Wizards before me”

        • Greg G.

          It is like saying people can’t shoot fireballs from their fingers…but wizards can.

          Speak for yourself.

        • Otto

          Mr Wizard?? Is that you?

        • “There are some that call me … Tim?”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns&t=65

        • Joe

          Wouldn’t a first cause need to act on something for it to be a cause?

          Are you related to SKL?

        • Greg G.

          How does a cause acting on norhing have an effect?

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not that science has no first cause, it’s that science doesn’t know if there’s a first cause or not nor what a first cause might be.

        • Doubting Thomas

          Science has no first cause because science doesn’t have the benefit of just making shit up. Religion, on the other hand, revels in such tactics.

        • Was there a first cause? The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that some quantum events (like maybe the Big Bang?) don’t have causes.

          There you go–perhaps a first cause isn’t necessary, and Aquinas’s fretting about the need for some first cause was wrong.

        • MR

          The first cause is a bizarre argument to my mind because even when I was religious I believed in a causeless something: God. But why should I assume God was causeless over just the universe being causeless? “God magic” just adds another layer which makes it even more improbable. Not even Genesis suggests that God created “matter” before he created the universe from it, and I doubt the original authors believed that or they would have stated as much explicitly. And then the argument that “everything created has had a creator,” never alludes to the fact that everything created was created from something that already existed independent of the creator. It’s just a fail all around to my mind. So much mental masturbation to justify the unjustifiable.

        • Agreed. It’s Christian Whac-a-Mole, in which they solve one problem and ignore how they’ve created another one elsewhere.

        • Rudy R

          Science does have a first cause…Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Yeah, that’s a good one. I’ve had surprising success asking this question:. If science says something comes from nothing, what does science say about something coming from nothing at the behest of something else?

        No one has changed their mind, of course, but a few people have recognized the silliness of their argument. Whether they went right back to repeating themselves in the next conversation, I don’t know. But they at least dropped it in ours.

      • Tommy
        • Greg G.

          I had never seen that TruthSurge video. ^^^^^^

    • VaulDogWarrior

      Science and Christians believe that the universe was created ex nihilo. I don’t get why they hate science so much. Shouldn’t they be jumping for joy that science confirms some part of the Bible? That the universe was created ex nihilo? It’s the billions of years and the evolution they don’t like though.

      • skl

        “Science and Christians believe that the universe was
        created ex nihilo. I don’t get why they hate science so much.”

        I don’t get why so many atheists say christians hate science. As commenter
        “Paul” below suggests, many famous scientists have been christians.

        • Bob Jase

          And fewer are every day.

        • Joe

          Yet Christianity appears precisely nowhere in their scientific work.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t get why so many atheists say christians hate science.

          Whaaa? Wtf is wrong with you?

          Maybe you should quit with the fallacious statements ya Dime Bar.

          Many Christians really are anti-science, especially when it comes to certain subjects, and that’s a fact. Wake up and smell the coffee. They are anti-science when science contradicts their silly holy books and woo-woo beliefs…though they embrace science when it suits them of course. That’s because they are a bunch of cherry picking hypocrites. Now generally speaking, I couldn’t give a shite about the ignorant fuckwits if they kept their knuckle-dragging nonsense to themselves. But that’s not the case, is it? You know fine rightly it’s not. You’ve read enough examples of anti-science Christianity on FA to the contrary, evidence of those anti-science Christians, so you are being a lying tit here. Wise ta fuck up.

          As commenter “Paul” below suggests, many famous scientists have been christians.

          And many famous scientists were , and are, of other religions and none…whoopty-feckin’-do…so what?

          Many famous scientists have/had hair also…did that make them more, or less efficient, as scientists?

          Like you, commenter “Paul” below talks loada bubbles too.

        • MR

          Maybe you should quit with the fallacious statements….

          Skl? Oh that’s rich. What would be left?

        • ildi

          Passive-aggressive non sequiturs?

      • Bob Jase

        No science doesn’t ‘believe’ the universe was created from nothing, it admits it doesn’t know what preceeded the present universe but that it was likely existing in a different state.

        No magic need apply.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Where do you get the idea that ex nihilo creation is the scientific consensus?

      • Ignorant Amos

        Last I heard…science doesn’t know how the universe was created?

        • Doubting Thomas

          Or if it was created at all. Some models are for an eternal universe.

        • Susan

          Or if it was created at all. Some models are for an eternal universe.

          Even without an eternal universe, there is no reason to accept the word “create” if it implies a “creator”.

    • Joe

      Are you saying the evidence for computer processors is on the same level as the evidence for a specific god creating the universe from “nothing”?

      No, you probably don’t know what you’re saying.

    • Doubting Thomas

      So religious people don’t understand the difference between assertion and evidence. I fail to see how that’s a counter to Bob’s point.

    • So evidence isn’t a requirement? Then I made Yahweh from nothing.

      Beat that.

      • Otto

        Like you were the first to do that…meh

      • skl

        Only problem is that they can’t see the Yahweh you said you made.

        But maybe you could sway them a bit if you made a living
        thing from non-living things in front of their eyes.

  • BeeeRad

    Maybe I shouldn’t fault all Christians with the faulty logic of the Great Kirk Cameron, but I have heard his theories repeated by quite a lot of them. His first “proof” was the “incredible complexity” of the human eye. The argument he made was that a human eye is so amazing and complex, it could not have come into being through evolution. Those who know their evolutionary biology are chuckling right now, as many fish species have more complex, powerful eyes than we do.

    The second argument he made was that bananas are tasty and nutritious, come in a biodegradable wrapper, and fit perfectly in monkeys’ hands. I shit you not. Oh, he’s an atheist now, BTW.

  • VaulDogWarrior

    I agree that Christianity and its god is demonstrably false, but I know from personal experience that religion can make life subjectively better for people. This is just a fact. And it means repigore is going away u til we can offer something to replace it. Perhaps if science can one day offer immortality.

    • Otto

      If someone enjoys their religion like a hobby I have no problem, when they expect me and everyone else to take their hobby as seriously as they do, and they claim that all morality and virtue springs from their hobby…we now have a problem that has to be addressed.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      I know from personal experience that religion can make life subjectively better for people. This is just a fact.

      Make it “some people” and you won’t get much disagreement. It’s also equally true that religion makes life subjectively worse for others. And the harm just happens to be more objectively demonstrable, too.

      Why does science need to offer immortality? Because religion claims to do so? So science has to deliver on the false promises of religion before the two are on equal footing?

    • eric

      religion can make life subjectively better for people. This is just a fact.

      Can being the operative word there. But it is certainly not necessary for a good life. A lot of western Europe shows this.

      And it means repigore is going away u til we can offer something to replace it.

      Again, I think Europe points the way. High religiosity seems to be at least somewhat (though not entirely) associated with poverty/want and to a lesser extent, income disparity. It’s a salve for people who aren’t getting what they need to prosper. So I think the “replacement” for it is to increase prosperity through fair social structures and good social safety nets. When your children have good food to eat, good clothes and a good roof over their head, access to basically the same health care and education all the rich people get, and there’s very low rates of crime in your neighborhood, well then there isn’t much need to pray to God for those things.

      • Joe

        Religion can make life better. It can also make life worse. Therefore religion is superfluous to quality of life.

      • Jennny

        ….no need to pray for life’s necessities…A teacher friend here in the UK hosted an exchange teacher from a remote african village. He was a x-tian, she isn’t. As she had to leave early on the first morning, she showed him the kitchen so he could make his own breakfast. He asked what some of her gadgets were for – dishwasher, toaster, microwave etc. He said ‘So what do you pray for when you go to church on Sundays, you have everything.’

        • Taneli Huuskonen

          I was briefly confused about who was a Christian and who wasn’t, before I read further.

      • Cynthia

        So religion may be the opiate of the people, but it might be better than an opioid crisis?

    • epicurus

      I have no problem with someone finding Jesus and getting off drugs or finding consolation in the verses of the Koran to help get them through a personal tragedy.
      But I do object to them taking their religion into the political arena and demanding the govt, education, and legal system etc be based on their particular interpretation of a religion or book.

    • Joe

      Science could offer immortality, if it didn’t have a conscience. If, by “offer”, you mean “make a baseless claim”?

    • Gary Whittenberger

      But can a delusion or a lie make life “subjectively better” than the truth?

      • Greg G.

        Saying “you look nice today” to an elderly person who has obviously put some effort into looking nice makes life subjectively better for them than truthfully saying “you don’t look a day over 85”, especially when they are only 80.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          The proposition “You look nice today” might be a true statement, a delusion, or a lie. I don’t think you should say it if it does not accurately reflect your belief.

          Telling a person “You look nice today” when you think they don’t would be a lie. Right? I think we should tell the truth in almost all circumstances.

    • I’ll agree that groundless hope can help people in desperate situations, but I suspect that when you factor in the bad side, Christianity is a net negative.

      Perhaps if science can one day offer immortality.

      How come religion gets a pass in the evidence department?

    • C_Alan_Nault

      “but I know from personal experience that religion can make life subjectively better for people. This is just a fact.”

      So can heroin.

      • epeeist

        The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
        George Bernard Shaw

  • Mefistofele

    The challenge for Yahweh is easy… Make Pat Robertson an atheist.

  • Dennis Lurvey

    and after Baal failed the test, YHWH ordered all the worshipers of Baal to be killed, and the were. Just one of 158 times YHWH kills in the bible.

    We don’t need to disprove god because it was never proven he existed in the first place. In fact the OT traces the invention of god by the mythical characters abraham and moses from a storm god of a local area to the one and only god. Not on it’s own merits but by the force of govt and law. Judaism and christianity was never more than a 8% religion until it was made the established religion of the roman empire in the 4th century, under threat of death.

    God was never more than a mythical character in a book, no more real than harry potter or huck finn.

    reference Israel Finkelstein and thomas romer.

    • Michael Neville

      According to the propaganda Ol’ Yahweh is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can, he orders genocide and sexual slavery, he condones slavery and rape. Even if Yahweh was shown to exist I certainly wouldn’t worship him.

  • Dennis Lurvey

    From 1850 to 1960 we has a shadow protestant theocracy in america. women had to cover completely, blasphemy laws prevented the questioning of the existence of god, alcohol was made illegal by constitutional amendment (religious law), christian prayers in schools, etc. In 1947 the supreme court ruled there is a separation of church and state in the constitution, and subsequent cases confirmed it over and over. We have gone from 85% christian to 71% (and half of those are non practicing). Christianity without govt intervention will fail in america……….and that is where Trump comes in……….. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9fc79b7e2086fe45cb27b1ee47d196349acde1514488cc41ccb89ed60e69a1e.jpg

  • HFR

    Look up the word “Superstition” in a dictionary?
    “Unfounded, unreasoned fear of the unknown, misplaced and misdirected reverence, especially in connection with religion”.
    There you are, religious superstition and worship explained. It’s been written in dictionaries for hundreds of years, you just have to look it up.
    To believe in the supernatural, one must first be addicted to the superstitious.
    The religious do not have a faith or a belief, they have an indoctrinated superstition, they think the supernatural spirits, demons, devils, ghosts, angels all sorts of contrived imaginary falsehoods are somehow real. Because they were abused with forced religious superstitious indoctrination as a vulnerable young trusting child by the evil old men of religions.
    No matter where you were born, that country and culture will forcibly indoctrinate you into a religious superstition of choice. Mankind may have been out of prehistoric cave dwelling for several thousand years but we still have the primitive caveman superstition indoctrinated by manipulative evil old shaman priests, their churches drowning in massive wealth from insatiable greed.
    Think of religious indoctrination like a lucky charm, as long as you believe in your religion lucky charm, no bad luck or evil will harm you.
    Atheists simply don’t need lucky charms, the more primitive a persons thinking the more easily manipulated and addicted to religious superstition.
    They need the lucky charm, just to walk out the door and face the world full of the contrived imaginary evil superstitious indoctrinations.
    A person wearing a crucifix or any other religious superstition paraphernalia is a perfect example of an indoctrinated religiously abused child, completely manipulated lucky charm wearer?

  • towercam

    What’s wrong with you? WHY don’t you make it easy for me to share your articles?
    You don’t want me to share them with people who might like them? So be it.
    I think you’re making bad decisions.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Perhaps you’ve read Jesus saying, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test” (Matthew 4:7).”

    Yeah. But the Bible also tells us he said:

    Matthew 17:20 For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

    &

    Matthew 21:21 I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

    &

    Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

    &

    John 14:12-14 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

    &

    Matthew 18:19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    • Greg G.

      Matthew 7:7-8 (NRSV)7 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

      John 15:7 (NRSV)7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

      John 15:16 (NRSV)16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name.

      John 16:23-24 (NRSV)23 On that day you will ask nothing of me. Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.

      James 1:5 (NRSV)5 If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.

      James 5:15-16 (NRSV)15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

      1 John 5:14-15 (NRSV)14 And this is the boldness we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him.

      ETA:

      Luke 11:9-13 (NRSV)9 “So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? 12 Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

      • I’m going to alert the Better Business Bureau about this guy. He makes crazy claims that don’t come true. Can I get some support for the “truth in advertising” principle, please?

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Just pass a law that all churches & other religious organizations must clearly post the following sign & announce the following at the start of all religious sermons/classes/etc:

          “This is for entertainment purposes only. You must be 18 years or older to use this service. All guidance is subject to your own interpretation. By attending a sermon or class you are agreeing that any information/guidance provided does not constitute or substitute for legal, psychological, financial, medical, or business advice. You claim full responsibility for the choices and/or actions taken based on the content of your reading.”

        • You’ve got my vote!

        • And why is it that alternative medicines with no proveable health benefits need a warning label, but churches, which make outlandish and bizarre claims, don’t?

        • C_Alan_Nault

          And don’t forget the churches ( which are businesses selling a product/service they haven’t been able to prove exists) get tax breaks and concessions just because they are religious businesses.

          All churches, temples, synagogues etc should be taxed at the same rate as other businesses are taxed.

          All monies collected by these religious groups should be declared as income.

    • Phil

      I already put an end to this by praying to god not to answer anymore prayers. And he has fulfilled his promise, thus proving he exists. Take that Bob!

  • Gord O’Mitey

    Well, well, and after all that, I just disappeared up my own asshole. Like most bullies, I’m a coward.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    I am afraid your premise is wrong, pat is a conman and hence knows he is talking shit the whole time, its all about the green for him

  • Ficino

    Dog is Love. Dog is love as to His/Her essence.

  • Anthrotheist

    As far as I can tell,
    The Catholics believe that Christianity invented science, so there is no conflict to be found.
    The protestants believe that God permits science, much like he permits all forms of sin and deception, at least so far.

    One believes that they are perfectly compatible, the other that they are infinitely unmatched.

    • Damien Priestly

      As an ex-Catholic — I know that Catholics don’t believe that Christianity “invented” science. But they do think science like evolution, is God guided and a “gift” from God to humanity.

      Either Catholic or Protestant, they are delusional, and both are very defensive…That is why they both use the “Christians have done science in the past” — therefore the Christian God is real nonsense

      • Greg G.

        Yeah, but when someone lists scientists from the 12th to 14th centuries, you can bet the person is Catholic.

  • EllyR

    The Elijah test proves beyond any doubt that some ETs or a previous terrestrial civilization was behind the “miracles” using science available today. The fact that there was no miraculous fire lit but some total destruction of the whole rig, indicates the use of a laser or a small remote controlled explosion. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82dcbef54e1a91c0bf9ac2d92e2e7aadcd31b8c844455ca4dba2fea5824ef51e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/590be35c90d25892364ba90b5021b500ae27611ffc390226763bdb7d634c621c.jpg

    • Otto

      Do you think those paintings were made by a person who was at the events? C’mon…you can’t be serious.

      EDIT: OK…I obviously fell for it.

      😉

      • EllyR

        No, I don’t, that will be as stupid as believing in gods. I do believe though that some event descriptions were written by people that were present during the event. The test was to kindle fire and not to blast the whole altar. When you use a laser weapon to do so from a great height, it makes a lot of sense to receive the results depicted.

    • … or maybe the story developed as a legend? I think aliens are unnecessary.

      • EllyR

        Maybe, these are all speculations after all…

    • Kuno

      I once had an idea for a short story I never found the time to write. The premise was that “God” actually was an alien race. At some time there was a civil war between the aliens, followed by a regime change. This explains why “God’s” rules and behaviour are so different between the Old and the New Testament.

  • davidt

    I think when one relies on pat roberston as their topic expert, then thats just confusion debating confusion. One must ask which confused is correct?

    Who is more annoying dipheads with jesus or dip heads without jesus! A toss up as far as i can tell.

  • The challenge that I have presented several times to believers (no takers, as of yet) is the Autographed Photograph Challenge.

    As we well know, the ole’ bible ‘records’ that the god of the Hebrews (care of his ‘reps’) is fully in favor of being tested. Apart from Elijah and his Sacrificial Altar challenge to the priests of Baal, there are other examples- such as Moses and Aaron with their staff and leprous-hand tricks to challenge Pharaoh’s magicians, while, in the NT, even Jesus has his hands with the holes to show to the disciple Thomas.

    So, returning to this Autographed Photograph Challenge- we have an example of the Kastom people around Yaohnanen village on the southern island of Tanna in Vanuatu who actually have several autographed photographs of the one whom they worship (see post end image below):

    The challenge (reversing the Elijah vs the Priests of Baal test, in order of presentation) is for the worshippers of Yahweh to likewise produce an Autographed Photograph of their own deity. Even Jesus could be entretied to hold the camera, for he is reported to have said:

    John 14:13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

    (It is fully a cop-out for god supporters to respond with a somewhat lame: “No human eye can behold Him and live“, for a camera, emulsion-type or digital, is not a living thing and cameras have been produced to record all manner of wavelengths from the UV to the IR extremities of the visible light spectrum. Additionally, remote-control shutters and Self Timers are common camera accessories.)

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/11/18/Tanna-2-AFP.jpg

    • Prince Phillip must be more charming than I gave him credit for.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

      It is fully a cop-out for god supporters to respond with a somewhat lame: “No human eye can behold Him and live”,

      Which is obviously bullshit since “The LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Ex. 33:11).

      • Greg G.

        Is there a reason why Jesus can’t take a 21st century camera back in time, take a picture of himself being crucified (better yet, a video), then bringing it back to the present?

        • Bob Jase

          It worked for the Blair Witch.

    • I just commented elsewhere, “Pics or it didn’t happen.” I didn’t expect to be slapped in the face with that very thing quite this quickly. Nice one.

    • Michael Neville

      The Duke of Edinburgh is hardly godly. But the Kastom can produce photos of him.

      • History, real not imaginary, records that when people can actually physically touch, and interact with, an individual regarded as being a deity – that one is a human who is acclaimed as being a god.

        List of people who have been considered deities
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

        Prince Philip is included in the list under the heading Involuntary deification.
        A fellow named Naram-Sin (2255 BCE–2119 BCE) is recorded as being “The first Mesopotamian king to claim divinity.” Unfortunately for recorded human history prior to 1861, photochemical-action photography, predecessor to today’s digital variety, was not readily accessible. (1861 comes to mind because historical images of America’s Civil War were recorded by the wet-plate collodion process which required exposures of up to 20 seconds, but had the advantage of the introduction of horse-drawn mobile darkrooms. – photography was mobile in the field for the first time!)

        In regard to the possibility of taking of deity photographs-

        Are we not are informed in that wacky ole’ “holey” book, at Matthew 19:26:
        But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”‘ (?)

        To my way of thinking, regarding being able to produce an autographed ‘deity’ photograph, the shoe is entirely on the other foot.

        • Speaking of the imaginary – and anime is one of my entertainment choices . . .

          An excellent portrayal of a human considered in the deity-class may be that of Jin Toujou who is often called “the War-God”. Jin Toujou is father of Basara Toujou: lead male protaginist of the anime “The testament of Sister New Devil“. (Take care where, and when, you choose to watch any episodes of this series- one can call it Restricted to Over 18!) The exerp linked below is limited to battle action.

          https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhMyE9TEgjCQ7f6ITJdrQIkITAXNuLcrmR1K4Ouqbur6taALyjKQ
          Jin Toujou and his son Basara

          https://vimeo.com/144179359
          Jin Toujou in action: “Jin Toujou vs Demonlord Jin Toujou puts out his cigarette, annoyed by the actions that have recently threatened the lives of his son, and two adopted daughters.

        • Greg G.

          A deity of the omnipotent variety should at least be able to manufacture a camera at any point in time, take some selfies, and have them be discovered every century or so, if not take pictures in the future and time travel the pictures backwards.

        • Well, the “elephant in the room” here is that the writers of the Pentuarch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) didn’t set their sight very high, at all. Just how strong (powerful) is their god?

          Numbers 23:22 King James Version (KJV)

          22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

          8 Times Unicorns Were Mentioned in the Bible
          http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Unicorn-in-the-Scriptures/s/80758

          QUOTE “The source text for each of these references gives us the Hebrew “re’em,” which the Jewish Encyclopedia describes as “a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns.” If this sounds less like a unicorn and more like a rhinoceros, that’s because many scholars believe these verses likely refer to the African mammal.

          https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2018/02/01/22/14/locomotive-3124200_960_720.jpg

          By way of comparison, in the introduction to Adventures of Superman (1952–1958) we hear:

          QUOTE “Announcer: ‘Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!’
          Voices: ‘Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Superman!’
          Announcer: ‘Yes, it’s Superman, strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.’

          Now an African Elephant is larger (and likely stronger) than a African Rhino, and yet the only large African Elephant in captivity in 19th century USA, named Jumbo, died when struck by a steam locomotive on September 15, 1885.

          So, I’d hazard that all this means that Superman (at least as he was described in the 1950s) must be more powerful than the god of the pentuarch. Additionally, we are told that he can “bend steel in his bare hands” while the bible tells us that the god of Israel could not help the armies of Israel when they went into battle against “inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
          Judges 1:19

          https://youtu.be/u8x7mZf0kLE

  • watcher_b

    I’ve been thinking, what if we started to couch our scientific reasoning in “Christianese”

    For example, we can talk about the “prophetic power” of science vs the prophetic power of Christianity. Science predicts things and they come true ALL THE TIME. I would be willing to make 5 scientific predictions and bet they would all come true and that could be compared to 5 predictions from Christianity.

    For example, science states that if I drop a ball and a feather at the same time in a vacuum they’ll both fall at the same speed. You get the gist of what the other 4 would be.

    Christianity has no cause and effect statements, that I’m aware of.

    Now a Christian could make the case that they have a “personal relationship” with God and therefore can make some predictions based on communication from that God through that “relationship”. I’m willing to test that as well, but they better be some significant predictions indicating that they could have only come from God, such as “if I pray fire will come down from heaven and burn this damp alter” or whatever.

    • Greg G.

      For example, science states that if I drop a ball and a feather at the same time in a vacuum they’ll both fall at the same speed. You get the gist of what the other 4 would be.

      I saw a video of that on Facebook the other day. They dropped a heavy ball and several feathers at the same time in a special chamber with transparent walls. The ball fell fast and the feathers floated down slowly.

      Then they set up the experiment again, sucked all the air from the chamber, and released them again.

      The feathers fell with the ball. It was amazing to see feathers falling straight.