Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by **astradt1** Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:12 pm

I believe in Christianity because there is more evidence in respect of the life of Jesus than any other explanation regarding other religions and it was Jesus who offers us the chance of forgiveness of our sins and the promise of life after our death, as far as Iam concerned nothing prior to that is relevant.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Poly...So it is the promise of forgiveness of sins and an after life that attracts you to Christianity?

by snowyflake Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:08 pm

I believe in Christianity because there is more evidence in respect of the life of Jesus than any other explanation regarding other religions and it was Jesus who offers us the chance of forgiveness of our sins and the promise of life after our death, as far as Iam concerned nothing prior to that is relevant.

Where's Willing Sniper when you need him eh? Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:40 pm

Never far from our thoughts. Hypocrites of the world, UNITE!

by polyglide Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:34 am

Willing Sniper and those who do not know the meaning of being hypocritical
are away with the fairies where they belong.

by snowyflake Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:52 pm

The last two posts make no sense whatsoever. Hypocrisy is believing in something where there is not a stitch of evidence and then swearing on any 'holy' scripture that it is 'true' and THEN trying to get others to believe what you believe by creating closed organisations where only those who believe exactly the same as you can join. And God help you if you run into someone who doesn't quite believe what you believe because you are then dutybound to change that person's mind by at least threatening them with everlasting torment in the lake of fire and brimstone or at most killing them, because after all, God loves you. Smile

Any more hypocrisy for anyone? Anyone? Eh?

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:26 pm

Sure! I'll support anyone who always agrees with me.

by snowyflake Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Of course you do, OW. That's why you piffle away your time on debating forums. Smile

by polyglide Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:44 am

Snowflake, a delicate little thing, where did you get the meaning of hypocrisy from?

The general accepted meaning so far as I am aware is someone who preaches one thing and behaves in a manner that proves he/she does not believe what they preach.

by snowyflake Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:33 pm

Yes, polyglide, that's exactly what it is and as far as I'm aware, that's the way most believers, whatever it is they believe, behave. You have given examples of this hypocrisy yourself. You believe in Jesus Christ, someone there is little to no historical evidence, yet you expect everyone on this forum to take your word that what you say is 'absolute truth'. There is no way in the world for you to KNOW this. And I think in your heart of hearts you know this is true but it is incumbent on Christians to state things as though they are facts when there is no solid proof or even flimsy evidence to support it.

by trevorw2539 Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:52 pm

snowyflake wrote:Yes, polyglide, that's exactly what it is and as far as I'm aware, that's the way most believers, whatever it is they believe, behave. You have given examples of this hypocrisy yourself. You believe in Jesus Christ, someone there is little to no historical evidence, yet you expect everyone on this forum to take your word that what you say is 'absolute truth'. There is no way in the world for you to KNOW this. And I think in your heart of hearts you know this is true but it is incumbent on Christians to state things as though they are facts when there is no solid proof or even flimsy evidence to support it.

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with facts or proof. If someone truly believes that something is right and lives that way they are not hypocrites. If they go against what they say, that is hypocrisy. Polyglide believes what he/she says. Your statement that 'I think in your heart of hearts you know this is true but 'IT IS INCUMBENT ON CHRISTIANS' to state things as though they are facts.......' is a bit presumptuous. Many Christians accept the teaching of the Bible, proof or no proof, and who knows whether somewhere in Palestine there are not parchments yet to be found concerning a 'Jesus' of Nazareth.

by Shirina Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:36 am

It is, however, hypocritical to condemn someone for their actions because the Bible says they should be condemned while simultaneously ignoring parts of the Bible that would inconvenience their own lives. For instance, Christians should think twice before hauling out Deuteronomy quotes to condemn gays when there are plenty of rules in Deuteronomy that no Christian adheres to.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:49 am

Shirina wrote:It is, however, hypocritical to condemn someone for their actions because the Bible says they should be condemned while simultaneously ignoring parts of the Bible that would inconvenience their own lives. For instance, Christians should think twice before hauling out Deuteronomy quotes to condemn gays when there are plenty of rules in Deuteronomy that no Christian adheres to.

I assume you mean Leviticus. Deuteronomy is based on instructions to the Hebrews themselves.

Leviticus, in the main, is a conglomeration of health and food regulations for the time. Most of it comes from earlier civilisations and is sensible, given the knowledge of the time. Much of it is outdated because we have more knowledge of diseases, food problems and cleanliness, so is not practised today. Rules concerning the Hebrews are for the Hebrews.
My views on homosexuality you know.
I agree with the underlined.

by polyglide Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:17 pm

As I have said previously I am not interested in what happened prior to the arrival of Jesus, man was responsible for the writings oft mentioned not God and the times prior to Jesus have no relevance to what is expected of those born after the coming of Jesus.

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:40 pm

"I am not interested in what happened prior to the arrival of Jesus"
Well that's several thousand years of Human history we don't need to bother about then.

The Egyptians (and their bondage of the Children of Israel), the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, Alexander the Great, and those bellicose Romans.

Any idea when the 7-year reign of the Antichrist can be expected, polyfilla? Wouldn't want to miss that.

by Mel Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:14 pm

"Religion And Related Issues" and Re-Evidence for the existance of God.

Belief or not, this frolific board shows that the debate is perhaps greater than one upon the existance of creatures from outer space. Does this tell us something?

by polyglide Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:01 pm

If anyone was aware of the exact time of the end of the present system then they would act accordingly, that is why no one does.

by Shirina Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:03 pm

Belief or not, this frolific board shows that the debate is perhaps greater than one upon the existance of creatures from outer space. Does this tell us something?

Probably because, at least for the time being, aliens from outer space aren't telling us how to live our lives and trying to pass laws forcing everyone - believer or not - to adhere to one particular religion's set of values. I don't think that many in the US, at least, would be so concerned about religion if religion wasn't so ... what's the word ... pushy? If everyone was simply left in peace to live their lives within the boundaries of secular law, atheists wouldn't have any wind in their sails to use against Christians, and Christians could get on with the business of bettering themselves instead of trying to better everyone else.

by Mel Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:52 am

Surely we are all entitled to bursts of frustration/ anger/ bitterness about life. But when that frustration/ anger/ bitterness becomes your life, then is your problem. Perhaps some atheists have a lot to be bitter about, however, you may have allowed your bitterness to consume you. If you continue to attempt to prove God’s non-existence and mocking folk who prefer to believe. all you are doing IMO is increasing your anger and bitterness and therefore you are getting nowhere.

by polyglide Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:16 am

When one looks at life as it is now there is no apparent fairness in any part of life, taking the world as a whole.

We all suffer frustrations and ailments along with events that cause us great grief and it all appears unfair.

But taking a reality check it is all self inflicted.

There is enough food in the world to feed all, there would be no illnesses if man had not interfered in all aspects of nature and no wars if man had headed God's warnings, the most impotant of all though is the lack of understanding and love between each other.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:10 pm

Religion is merely one of the many Control Games which people like to play.

by Shirina Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:33 am

But taking a reality check it is all self inflicted.

I agree that a lot of it IS self-inflicted. I don't think grief over the loss of an elderly loved-one is self-inflicted since no one lives forever. But most of the poverty and hunger in the world is caused by our own actions, the greed and the incessant desire for more, more, more. Everyone feels they have a RIGHT to own 50 exotic sports cars while others starve. This belief in having the RIGHT to amass enormous amounts of wealth at the expense of others has us driving down a path of self-destruction. The only difference we have on this subject is that I don't believe there's going to be a Jesus to save us. Like we did when Rome collapsed, we'll have to save ourselves.

by Mel Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:06 am

"we'll have to save ourselves."
We shall never be able to save ourselves unless a mirical happens that we have full and proper wealth distribution and IMO that will sadly never happen.

Whilst there is greed to the highest degree with power to the few against the masses, as it has always been, there may be no hope left for us except the hope that Jesus will return to save us.

by Guest Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:55 pm

Mel wrote:
… there may be no hope left for us except the hope that Jesus will return to save us.

This is not merely hope. That Jesus will return for all of us, one way or the other (“sheep” or “goats”), is a promised certainty.

Greek Bible:

“Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also.”

John 14:1-3

by polyglide Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:18 pm

And it will not be long before Jesus honours his word and of that I am 100% CERTAIN.

by Tosh Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:45 pm

Science is the appropriate mechanism to determine what exists, according to the God hypothesis, all evidence proves God exists and no evidence disproves God exists, this is in itself scientific proof that the hypothesis is empty and meaningless.

In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

by Guest Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:05 pm

Tosh wrote:
According to the God hypothesis, all evidence proves God exists and no evidence disproves God exists, this is in itself proof that the hypothesis is empty and meaningless.

The hypothesis is wrong, period, ye ol’ Scot. YHVH Elohim (sorry for the formality, but it’s necessary hereon) has never said anything of the sort. What he has said is that one must (1) know UYHVH Elohim (hereinafter “God” in this post) personally, and thus (2) know (rather than merely believe) that God exists, present tense, which includes everywhere and everywhen, i.e., the entirety of time and space.

by Tosh Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:14 pm

Good afternoon Texas,

Hope life is treating you and yours well, I have been directed by an unseen agent to seek you out and convert you to the true belief of atheism.

If indeed the hypothesis is wrong, can you tell me what evidence would disprove the existence of G*d ? Basketball

by Guest Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:43 pm

Good afternoon (morning here) to you, my Scot brother. I’m good. Can’t help but be good in God’s Chosen Country, the Great Sovereign State of Texas, bless her heart.

Yeah, I said “Scot”; turns out I’m likely partially descended from border reavers. Missy just served early lunch; when I lifted the cover of the meat pan, spurs stared back up at me. “Time to saddle up, mates. We’s got us some other folks’s hooved critters t’ harvest!”

Has it been that long that you do not remember? Only God can prove the existence or nonexistence of God. And remember, God is YHVH Elohim, Adonai Eluneinu, eternally existent, pre-existing existence, post-existing existence, all knowing everywhere and every when, i.e., omniscient throughout space/time. Since you ain’t him, I ain’t him, and ain’t nonna us him... God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven; thus, any claim to the contrary is wrong.

Evidence of God’s existence is an entirely different matter. For instance: Inside you are kidneys, a liver, a pancreas, and other wonders of biochemistry that ain’t nobody been able to figure out yet! That’s why transplant lists are over-full on both sides of the pond; unlike heart transplants, which mechanization has rendered almost obsolete, the only way to replace the functions performed by these chemo-organs is to put another one in there. For the life of me, I cannot explain these organs to myself via macro-evolutions supposed “trigger”, natural selection. Selection from what, for Pete’s sake?

Is that proof? Nope. Is that evidence? Yea, buddy! At least to me, and I’m an ex physics student who also studied chemistry, biology, and math (Calc III kicked my ***!) before I came to my senses.

Regarding the bouncing pill: Can those American women hoop or what? Side note: I ain’t tryna run from no British cyclist ever again!

by Tosh Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:44 pm

God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven; thus, any claim to the contrary is wrong.

You misconceive the nature of scientific proof my friend, to prove something in science is to test it, an untestable hypothesis is in itself proof the hypothesis is empty of any meaning, it is simply a bare assertion. The evidence you claim supports your bare assertion is in itself a bare assertion, since all evidence proves God exists and no evidence disproves God exists. A rational mind proportions belief depending on test results, therefore it is irrational to proportion any credence to a hypothesis that can be proven to be empty. Science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in probabilities, the probabiity the hypothesis is true is disproportionate to the test results. Now you may insist on a higher level of proof than science requires and some may call this insistence irrational.

In effect science can prove God does not exist, and it is irrational to believe otherwise, hence the need for faith.

Faith is the acceptance of a lesser form of scientific proof to support the hypothesis and an insistence on a higher form of scientific proof to disprove the hypothesis.

by Guest Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:04 pm

Tosh wrote:
God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven; thus, any claim to the contrary is wrong.

You misconceive the nature of scientific proof my friend, to prove something in science is to test it, an untestable hypothesis is in itself proof the hypothesis is empty of any meaning, it is simply a bare assertion. The evidence you claim supports your bare assertion is in itself a bare assertion, since all evidence proves God exists and no evidence disproves God exists. A rational mind proportions belief depending on test results, therefore it is irrational to proportion any credence to a hypothesis that can be proven to be empty. Science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in probabilities, the probabiity the hypothesis is true is disproportionate to the test results. Now you may insist on a higher level of proof than science requires and some may call this insistence irrational.

In effect science can prove God does not exist, and it is irrational to believe otherwise, hence the need for faith.

Faith is the acceptance of a lesser form of scientific proof to support the hypothesis and an insistence on a higher form of scientific proof to disprove the hypothesis.

12 gauge shotgun or precision sniper rifle? Let’s go with choice #1.

One of things from which I freed myself when I opted out of physics as a chosen filed of study was the rigorous insistence therein upon strict adherence to rules such as the ones with which you are demonstrably familiar. I will, however, linger there for a moment.

There’s the scientific definition of proof, requiring a certain level of replicability (if it’s not a word, it ought to be), there’s the legal definition of proof, requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and there’s proof, which in truth is unattainable. “I saw and heard it”; perhaps you were on a trip on AWA, Acid World Airways. I knew some hippies back in the day that saw, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched a whole bunch of things that weren’t there.

Approaching (real) proof, and leaving both scientific and legal proof behind, we speak of proof those phenomena that reliable persons have seen and/or heard and/or smelled and/or touched and/or tasted. For instance, I saw daylight this morning, through my windows, in the early AM; thus, unless I’m hallucinating, it’s now daytime.

Allow your mind to contemplate nothing, and then see if you can wrap your mind around an entity that exists when nothing exists, including (1) the time in which the entity exists when there is no time (and thus “when” is meaningless) and (2) the place in which the entity exists where this is no place (and thus “where is meaningless). That’s YHVH, as close of an “adequate” transliteration of the Hebrew phrase as I can muster.

Now allow your mind to again contemplate nothing, and then see if you can wrap your mind around an entity, pre-existing and post-existing existence, by which all existence, space, time, energy, matter, the laws of science (all of them), thought, emotion, life, you name it, comes into being, from absolutely nothing, mind you. That’s Elohim, a commonly accepted transliteration of a Hebrew word the connotative meanings of which include “immeasurable power” and “incomprehensible power.”

I can’t prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of such an entity by any methodology known to science or law. Either you know he exists, or you don’t know he exists. If you know, you cannot prove it to anyone else. If you don’t know, either you believe he exists or you believe he does not exist.

The evidence I’ve offered? Explain how natural selection has produced kidneys, pancreases, and livers. I can’t.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:43 pm

Descartes is perhaps the best-known of various Philosophers who have tried to square the circle of Man being created in God's image. Comparison of the fragile mortal Human with an omnipotent and omniscient Creator can only ever result in cackles of embarassed laughter.

Probably best for the seekers-after-truth to confine their search to within the human psyche rather than strain at the great unknown. But have fun if that's what amuses you.

by Tosh Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:55 pm

The evidence I’ve offered? Explain how natural selection has produced kidneys, pancreases, and livers. I can’t.

.

Assuming I had an explanation, would this disprove God's existence, if not then its a meaningless premise.

We both know faith works backwards in the scientific sense, Faith begins with a fixed conclusion and looks for evidence or premises to support it.
Science operates the other way around, and science works.

Here is my latest theory for your perusal:

When the religious claim life has no purpose or meaning without God, what they really mean is religion provides them status. Some humans need to be a member of a special group with a special purpose in order to achieve status, it is no different to the attitudes of cult members. The key ingredient in any cult is significance, and significance is status, members cannot achieve self status (esteem) in the outside world and find it in a world of make believe. We all need status to give us our own individual identity and anonymous insignificance is an obstacle to our well being.
Consciousness is in of itself meaningless if it has nothing to be conscious of, much like our identity, we are who we are " in relation " to other identities.

Humans need relationships and religion provides a meaningful relationship with a God of purpose and with other believers, creating a group of significance.

Chimpanzees spend much of their time establishing and cementing relationships in their group to maintain or improve their status.

We are monkeys who need to be loved and respected by others and who need to love and respect ourselves.

by Shirina Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:15 pm

We both know faith works backwards in the scientific sense, Faith begins with a fixed conclusion and looks for evidence or premises to support it.

Faith is dependent on NOT knowing something. This is why faith and religion have always thrived around the questions science has yet to answer. Only rarely has faith ever challenged science head-on which is why scientific principles once considered heresy are now common knowledge. Even the religious no longer believe the sun revolves around the earth. The desperate and the fanatical may cling to old beliefs, but the rest of the world - including religion - will ultimately accept the scientific answer.

Religion and science do work at cross purposes, though. Science tries to fill the gaps in our knowledge while faith tries to preserve them. It's like two men with shovels and a hole. One man is desperately trying to fill in the hole while the other tries to dig it out. However, over the centuries, that hole is getting ever more shallow as our knowledge inevitably increases.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:46 am

Evening Shirina,

I see you are putting on weight. :affraid:

by Shirina Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:15 am

I see you are putting on weight.

Perhaps for a model, but not for me. I love you

by trevorw2539 Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:49 pm

Shirina quote.
Religion and science do work at cross purposes, though. Science tries to fill the gaps in our knowledge while faith tries to preserve them. It's like two men with shovels and a hole. One man is desperately trying to fill in the hole while the other tries to dig it out. However, over the centuries, that hole is getting ever more shallow as our knowledge inevitably increases.

And how deep is the hole. It seems to me that most questions answered by science throw up more questions. Thus the hole remains the same or deepens.

Simple example. Penicillin was a great healer for many 'diseases'. Now genetic mutation of bacteria means more questions - and answers have to be found. Until we, perhaps, have a universal Panacea.

Will our science lead us into 'realms' (and this is not in religious terms) that we do not know about.
IF it does the hole becomes an abyss.

Just musing

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:59 pm

Religion and science do work at cross purposes, though. Science tries to fill the gaps in our knowledge while faith tries to preserve them.

Good evening Trevor,

I must disagree with every single word you have posted, Science and Religion are incompatible, Science and morality are built around human rationality and reason, religion is devoid of all REASON. Every piece of knowledge man has acquired involved reason not religion, religion is the enemy of reason and an obstacle to human enlightenment.

by Shirina Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:34 pm

And how deep is the hole. It seems to me that most questions answered by science throw up more questions. Thus the hole remains the same or deepens.

I think the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age stand as proof that this isn't necessarily true. Scientific principles, by and large, work. Otherwise we could never have built a steam engine, sent a man to the moon, or constructed the internet. Science is like concrete - the longer it sits around, the more solid it becomes. When talking about cutting edge science where the concepts are new, those concepts are far more prone to change. At this stage, however, I don't think any new evidence will surface to dispute the orbits of the solar system or that will show the sun is actually a big sphere of burning coal.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:56 pm

RockOnBrother wrote: .... Inside you are kidneys, a liver, a pancreas, and other wonders of biochemistry that ain’t nobody been able to figure out yet! That’s why transplant lists are over-full on both sides of the pond; unlike heart transplants, which mechanization has rendered almost obsolete, the only way to replace the functions performed by these chemo-organs is to put another one in there. For the life of me, I cannot explain these organs to myself via macro-evolutions supposed “trigger”, natural selection. Selection from what, for Pete’s sake?

[/color]

A detached scientific observer from another Galaxy might also be impressed by the complexity of the human body, but mystified by the inefficiency on display.

Let's begin with the heart, as everything is dependent upon efficient circulation of the blood. It BEATS!
What Engineer would ever consider replacing a continuously-rotating smooth rotary pump with a stop-start paddle-type action? Madness! Move on to the posture: A creature with four limbs has chosen to ignore two of them for propulsion. The result is two years of first existence spent learning to adopt an un-natural erect posture without falling over, and old age dealing with the consequences of imbalance - broken limbs and damage to the body's fragile envelope. Kidneys and Liver are there only to eliminate poisons and impurities, so why create such a vulnerable body in the first place?

Added to which, White Men ain't got rhythm.

by trevorw2539 Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:13 pm

Tosh wrote:
Religion and science do work at cross purposes, though. Science tries to fill the gaps in our knowledge while faith tries to preserve them.

Good evening Trevor,

I must disagree with every single word you have posted, Science and Religion are incompatible, Science and morality are built around human rationality and reason, religion is devoid of all REASON. Every piece of knowledge man has acquired involved reason not religion, religion is the enemy of reason and an obstacle to human enlightenment.

You are quite welcome to tell that to hundreds of scientists who are of the Christian faith, and I guess of other faiths. As a believer in a creator who put all things into motion, whether by the Big Bang or other means, I happily accept that science is ours to use through the brains we have been given. Not to use science and explore its wonders would be a travesty.

Morality (moral codes) is down to culture, religion and philosophy. Thus the difference throughout the world. Our 'moral codes' bear a resemblance to some more civilised ancient cultures.

That faith is illogical doesn't make it any the less 'real' to many people.

I actually find this strange 'religion is the enemy of reason and an obstacle to human enlightenment.' Wasn't it Islam that extended our knowledge over many early centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science#Classical_science_in_the_muslim_world

Christianity in its first and purest form has more to offer the world than all your moral codes. 'Love God, and your neighbour as yourself'. It has been diluted and polluted down the centuries. Perhaps for the agnostic and athiest the second part could apply.

Good to talk to you. Though I post little on here now I still watch.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:04 pm

Good evening Trevor,

I am uninterested in how the minority of scientists square their irrational belief with their committment to rationality, that is between them and their psychiatrist, my comment relates to science and not scientists.
As for historical contributions to science by the religious, this is hardly surprising since few were literate and all were ignorant of knowledge and subsequently religious. People of our modern day and age forget religion provided all the answers to scientific questions, God did it. At best it stifled the need for genuine enquiry and at worst dissuaded enquiry into everything except mathematics.

Science stagnated from Constantine until the enlightenment, it should be renamed the Age without reason.

When you have one example of religion being compatible with science, we can discuss it.

by Sponsored content