re: Tim Tebow is such a good person

quote:

---

Sure, but if your only evidence is that we can't prove it DOESN'T exist, then there's not much criteria for truth is there?

---

And again, that isn't what I said. I said simply that just because you can't prove something does exist deosn't mean it does not. People always want proof something exists, as if that settles it. My point is thta it does not settle it.

I, and others, have stated often in this thread that Christianity if faith based, not based on proof. But for some reason, people want proof of God, or they say He doesn't exist, which is ludicrous.

quote:

---

At that point we have to say well, you can't DISPROVE unicorns, bigfoot, ghosts, a teapot orbiting Saturn, gnomes, smurfs, the flying spaghetti monster, Zues, or a giant that lives on a beanstalk in the clouds.

---

Which only highlights my point. I can't prove He does exist, but that doesn't mean He does not.
I never made the argument that you cannot prove that He does not exist. (I think somebody else said that, though.)

quote:

---

The only difference in your evidence for "god" and the evidence for those things is that we've been conditioned to believe in god, and it's accepted by our society. The difference in atoms is that they fall in line with everything else we know about the universe. They make sense.

---

Well, they do now. But they did not when the theory first came up.

You want to base your argument on hindsight, when I am making a point about the accepted thought at the time. MY point is that accepted truths change as time changes. Atoms were not accepted at one time. They are now. Germs were not accepted at one time. They are now. A true science believer would never discount the possibility that God exists until he had absolute proof that God does not exist. I am always amazed at the number of scientifically based people that throw scientific methods out to suit their own belief system.