davien:
And how did you deduce the universe to not be an uncaused cause?

this is the explanation of the Work of William Lane Craig a Theology philosopher

There is no other logical possibility.

Either some things are caused, or nothing is.

If nothing is caused, then I never wrote this. But I did write this, so at least some things are caused.

If some things are caused, either their causing is the result of a previous cause, or it isn't. In other words, either something caused it to cause, or nothing caused it to cause.

If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Infinite regress would mean that we have iterated, one-by-one, through every single item of an infinite series. But an infinite series always has more items than those that have been iterated through. We would have iterated through something that cannot be iterated through, which is logically incoherent.

If we were to go backwards through each previous cause, and there were an infinite number of past causes, there would necessarily be some cause in the set of previous causes that we would never, ever get to. If that were not the case, it would not be infinite. If there is some supposed prior cause in the set of previous causes that we could never get to while iterating backwards through all previous causes, then, iterating forward from that cause to the present state, we would never arrive at the present state for the same reason that going backwards we could never arrive at the previous state -- namely, the infinite (or unending) number of causes in between the two.

Infinite regress would mean that we have completed something that cannot be completed. We have traversed something that cannot be traversed. We have itemized what cannot be itemized, counted what cannot be counted, spanned what cannot be spanned.

Infinite regress is logically incoherent. Therefore, not everything is caused by a previous cause.

This means, necessarily, that EVERY series of causes has its own first cause, and since this first cause is a FIRST cause, it is uncaused.

What we also see is that since this first cause is never the result of a prior cause, since it is in fact a FIRST cause, it does not cause involuntarily. In other words, nothing made it cause: it did it voluntarily -- on its own. The first cause, in every series of causes, is therefore necessarily volitional: it is willful; it has personhood.

Every uncaused first cause, since it is uncaused, either began to exist without cause, or else it did not begin to exist, and is therefore self-existent.

If it began to exist without cause, then having nothing, adding nothing to it, something results. Or, in other words:

0 + 0 > 0.

This is the same as claiming that zero is not zero, which is logically contradictory. I like to call this "Atheist Math".

Therefore, since nothing can be caused by nothing, every uncaused first cause is self-existent. It is eternal, permanent, and not subject to change over time. It simply... is.

When anyone talks about some kind of uncaused, self-existent, willful, eternal, personal entity that is the first cause of things, the label generally applied to such an entity is "God".

So we see that not only must some type of God necessarily exist because of the impossibility of the contrary, but also that He must be an uncaused first cause for the same reason.

In fact, Christianity is the only worldview that is logically coherent. All other worldviews fall victim to inherent logical contradictions within their most basic presuppositions, particularly wherever they diverge from Christianity.

For example, due to the lack of divine sacrificial substitutionary atonement in Islam, when Allah, who is always just, forgives, He is not just.

Due to the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish prophecy is rejected by the Jews.

Due to the multiplicity of disagreeing gods in polytheism, wherever there is divine disagreement, things are and are not at the same time and in the same way.

The Christian God never contradicts Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); He fulfills the prophecies of the Jews (Acts 3:18); and the sacrifice of Christ makes it possible for the Christian God to be both just and forgiving at the same time (Hebrews 2:17).

Ultimately, only the Christian worldview provides a coherent understanding of reality and is not inherently contradictory.
- See more at: http://www.godcontention.org/compare-religions/how-can-god-be-an-uncaused-cause#sthash.xWgkYJ6d.dpuf

tevinsolt:


this is the explanation of the Work of William Lane Craig a Theology philosopher

There is no other logical possibility.

Either some things are caused, or nothing is.

If nothing is caused, then I never wrote this. But I did write this, so at least some things are caused.

If some things are caused, either their causing is the result of a previous cause, or it isn't. In other words, either something caused it to cause, or nothing caused it to cause.

If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Infinite regress would mean that we have iterated, one-by-one, through every single item of an infinite series. But an infinite series always has more items than those that have been iterated through. We would have iterated through something that cannot be iterated through, which is logically incoherent.

If we were to go backwards through each previous cause, and there were an infinite number of past causes, there would necessarily be some cause in the set of previous causes that we would never, ever get to. If that were not the case, it would not be infinite. If there is some supposed prior cause in the set of previous causes that we could never get to while iterating backwards through all previous causes, then, iterating forward from that cause to the present state, we would never arrive at the present state for the same reason that going backwards we could never arrive at the previous state -- namely, the infinite (or unending) number of causes in between the two.

Infinite regress would mean that we have completed something that cannot be completed. We have traversed something that cannot be traversed. We have itemized what cannot be itemized, counted what cannot be counted, spanned what cannot be spanned.

Infinite regress is logically incoherent. Therefore, not everything is caused by a previous cause.

This means, necessarily, that EVERY series of causes has its own first cause, and since this first cause is a FIRST cause, it is uncaused.

What we also see is that since this first cause is never the result of a prior cause, since it is in fact a FIRST cause, it does not cause involuntarily. In other words, nothing made it cause: it did it voluntarily -- on its own. The first cause, in every series of causes, is therefore necessarily volitional: it is willful; it has personhood.

Every uncaused first cause, since it is uncaused, either began to exist without cause, or else it did not begin to exist, and is therefore self-existent.

If it began to exist without cause, then having nothing, adding nothing to it, something results. Or, in other words:

0 + 0 > 0.

This is the same as claiming that zero is not zero, which is logically contradictory. I like to call this "Atheist Math".

Therefore, since nothing can be caused by nothing, every uncaused first cause is self-existent. It is eternal, permanent, and not subject to change over time. It simply... is.

When anyone talks about some kind of uncaused, self-existent, willful, eternal, personal entity that is the first cause of things, the label generally applied to such an entity is "God".

So we see that not only must some type of God necessarily exist because of the impossibility of the contrary, but also that He must be an uncaused first cause for the same reason.

In fact, Christianity is the only worldview that is logically coherent. All other worldviews fall victim to inherent logical contradictions within their most basic presuppositions, particularly wherever they diverge from Christianity.

For example, due to the lack of divine sacrificial substitutionary atonement in Islam, when Allah, who is always just, forgives, He is not just.

Due to the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish prophecy is rejected by the Jews.

Due to the multiplicity of disagreeing gods in polytheism, wherever there is divine disagreement, things are and are not at the same time and in the same way.

The Christian God never contradicts Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); He fulfills the prophecies of the Jews (Acts 3:18); and the sacrifice of Christ makes it possible for the Christian God to be both just and forgiving at the same time (Hebrews 2:17).

Ultimately, only the Christian worldview provides a coherent understanding of reality and is not inherently contradictory.
- See more at: http://www.godcontention.org/compare-religions/how-can-god-be-an-uncaused-cause#sthash.xWgkYJ6d.dpuf

William lane Craig uses presuppositions to arrive at his desired "god did it" conclusion.
First of all...."nothing" has never been established as a real state of anything.
We only have a "something" and examples of "something from something" but no examples of "nothing" not even the classical definition of "nothing" is known...let alone "nothing producing nothing" in the classical sense.
I don't know if you understand me....should I direct you to a source explaining this?

davien:
William lane Craig uses presuppositions to arrive at his desired "god did it" conclusion.
First of all...."nothing" has never been established as a real state of anything.
We only have a "something" and examples of "something from something" but no examples of "nothing" not even the classical definition of "nothing" is known...let alone "nothing producing nothing" in the classical sense.
I don't know if you understand me....should I direct you to a source explaining this?

sure why not

Emmalot121:
Questions on Christianity and I'll answer.

1. "The earth was void nd without shape" while the earth is actually spherical in shape

2. Adam and Eve cannot be the first humans on earth cos the earliest men were a prototype look of a giant rodent

2. The creation of the world can't work out in 7days, it can only take hundred million of years for the earth to metamorphose to this state

3. The characters in the religious books look most times to the sky thinking it is the abode of God ( this shows that they actually never had a clue what is really above the sky)

4. Check the Roman Culture and Christianity examine both critically and give me your answer, let me help you out a bit check this Zeus nd Jesus

5 . The Characters in these religious books re too primitive to stand the sophistication of today even

I can go on nd on

HerexG:


1. "The earth was void nd without shape" while the earth is actually spherical in shape

2. Adam and Eve cannot be the first humans on earth cos the earliest men were a prototype look of a giant rodent

2. The creation of the world can't work out in 7days, it can only take hundred million of years for the earth to metamorphose to this state

3. The characters in the religious books look most times to the sky thinking it is the abode of God ( this shows that they actually never had a clue what is really above the sky)

4. Check the Roman Culture and Christianity examine both critically and give me your answer, let me help you out a bit check this Zeus nd Jesus

5 . The Characters in these religious books re too primitive to stand the sophistication of today even

I can go on nd on

I will reply you tomorrow

voodoo85:


there's nothing to talk with u with such your thinking.

we don't roll on the same level, you need to discover yourself first.

davien:
I have no belief...

sorry!NEXT CALLER PLEASE!!! îya ra nshi

shadowgwalker:
we don't roll on the same level, you need to discover yourself first.

apparently we r not same level :DDD am surprised u understood that

voodoo85:


your decision is delusional.

there is nothing like a delusional decision. sorry, you lack words to express the size of your arsss!! I understand o.k

shadowgwalker:
there is nothing like a delusional decision. sorry, you lack words to express the size of your arsss!! I understand o.k

there's nothing worse than stupid woman who is allowed to speak. i don't understand where comes that comparison about my ass? what this has to do with anything? btw my asss is perfectly shaped in gym and round, hips are golden european size - 90 cm. so what u should be talking its just about your asss like a wardrobe. common, am waiting what jewels u gonna bring from your tin called scull.

shadowgwalker:
there is nothing like a delusional decision. sorry, you lack words to express the size of your arsss!! I understand o.k

oh sorry u r not a woman, u r fake transvestite who marks profile as (F) but considering marrying girls from village

tevinsolt:

sure why not

[url] http://www.rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Why_the_Kalam_Cosmological_argument_fails [/url]

UyiIredia:


We never did. It has been central to this discussion from the get go. If you are shifting that aside then forget about this. In the meantime you are ignoring the fact that water cycles lack subsystems which clearly regulate their behaviour in response to .varying environmental indices like temperature. Subsystems which regulate behaviour is what I have very REPEATEDLY emphasized constitutes a guided natural process to your continued ignorance

But there are clearly subsystems within the water cycle. If one of the subsystems is off sync the cycle wouldn't work at all. The water cycle clearly is a 'guided' natural process since it does not follow random patterns. Whether the water cycle follows a code I don't know.

voodoo85:


there's nothing worse than stupid woman who is allowed to speak. i don't understand where comes that comparison about my ass? what this has to do with anything? btw my asss is perfectly shaped in gym and round, hips are golden european size - 90 cm. so what u should be talking its just about your asss like a wardrobe. common, am waiting what jewels u gonna bring from your tin called scull.

talking about your assss... please can you upload the pic here? thank you. I wanna see that gymed yarnsh.

voodoo85:


apparently we r not same level :DDD am surprised u understood that

have you found yourself yet?

voodoo85:


oh sorry u r not a woman, u r fake transvestite who marks profile as (F) but considering marrying girls from village

are you jealous? my village girls will not be this noisy. gush. well! only on bed.

Kay17:


But there are clearly subsystems within the water cycle. If one of the subsystems is off sync the cycle wouldn't work at all. The water cycle clearly is a 'guided' natural process since it does not follow random patterns. Whether the water cycle follows a code I don't know.

No. All you need is the ocean, rivers and lakes, sunlight and some wind and you have a water cycle. Mountains are a plus to it. However, even if they were a subsystem they are in no way analogous to subsystems in living things which regulate their behaviour. BTW the water cycle doesn't follow any code.

UyiIredia:


No. All you need is the ocean, rivers and lakes, sunlight and some wind and you have a water cycle. Mountains are a plus to it. However, even if they were a subsystem they are in no way analogous to subsystems in living things which regulate their behaviour. BTW the water cycle doesn't follow any code.

With the array of naturally assembled factors, I'd be led to believe that the water cycle is as well a guided natural system. And for the water cycle to be consistent and continual, it necessarily has a regulation within its system.

If you refuse to accept the above, then you would be making nonsense of your term 'guided natural process'.

shadowgwalker:
talking about your assss... please can you upload the pic here? thank you. I wanna see that gymed yarnsh.

instead talking about my fake profile- look at yourself honey transvestite. why would i ever upload my asss pic for such ... as u?

voodoo85:


instead talking about my fake profile- look at yourself honey transvestite. why would i ever upload my asss pic for such ... as u?

no no no!!I want to get something straight, I don't want people to think we are arguing on a lost course. please just upload it, I just wanna prove a point. thanks

shadowgwalker:
no no no!!I want to get something straight, I don't want people to think we are arguing on a lost course. please just upload it, I just wanna prove a point. thanks

u will never ever prove any points because u r too stupidd. haven't met such stupidd person for a long time. am surprised that there r such thick people still around

shadowgwalker:
no no no!!I want to get something straight, I don't want people to think we are arguing on a lost course. please just upload it, I just wanna prove a point. thanks

u r boring little person, who doesn't have to say at all. good luck with your poor life

voodoo85:


u r boring little person, who doesn't have to say at all. good luck with your poor life

thanks for everything, it's nice knowing you.

Why is it that whenever any misconduct is mention that concerns the church or christians (most especially people that preach it, but due to some limitations they fall into the same thing they preach against) the next thing you will hear from someone is hypocrite. Did Jesus use that word for you to refer to people who may have been trying their possible best coupled also with prayer to attain to the heights that God wants them to reach? No he did not and that words is not for them, as long as the christian race is concern every soul that desires to run this race must be tried and purified, and that can only be achieved when they learn from their wrong doing, Jesus did not call Peter a hypocrite because he denied him he only encouraged him, and i believe you know how great exploit Peter did after he was converted, so also some who have been running this race.

Some people may have some limitations, as to how long they can endure some temptations (but yet still God expects us to come out of that limitation) that does not make them a penitent sinner or hypocrite as long as they are panting to God to deliver them from that sin, like they said gold is made in crucibles. God is in the business of perfecting his saints especially those that seek his will to do with all their hearts soul and mind.

Then who is the hypocrite?
Study the pharisees you will notice why Jesus was calling them that name. Some of the reason is that they lay grievous laws on the neck of the proselytes but they themselves don't lift it with a finger neither do they desire to do it, they abstain themselves from others calling them unclean but they themselves are not clean, they love the praise of men more that the praise of God. I will not give you scriptural references go search it yourselfs and confirm it (thank God for android phones and bible app that can search for words in the bible, i believe that will aid you if you are serious).
And mind you i am not saying that their are no pharisees in our time now, well there are, before you call them that name know them first. Jesus did not use that word for you to use it to call his sons and daughters who might not have lived to his expectation due to some temptations they could not resist, God is their father and a father will correct and train his own child, let God do that, but for you to use their lifestyle as an excuse to disobey God's word, it is to your own detriment, as the bible has rightly said that in a great house there are earth, wood, Gold etc. but if any purge himself he (that man) shall be a vessel unto honour. - 2 Timothy 2:19-21. Then in the latter verse you will see another instruction, Flee also youthful lust, follow after charity, love, patience, holiness,(this are not the precise words used, just summarizing). So finally the christian race is a personal race (but that does not mean that you should have your own personal conviction, as every child of God must leave according to the biblical principles) you must obey every instruction from God even though many disobey, maybe even your pastor, but nevertheless the foundation of the Lord standeth sure, the lord knoweth them that are his, so therefore let every man that nameth the name of christ depart from iniquity - 2 Timothy 2:19.

Your soul first before others, enter first before calling others hypocrites.

Judgement Day is fast approaching.

Psalm 14: 1

They are simply fools, well you will not blame them as satan has blinded their eyes that they should not see the light of God as the bible stated - 2 Corinthians 4:4, but for them to have heard and seen the[/size] prove by miracles and yet still don't believe they are to be blamed.

Here's the new praise medley by kckingz that is crowning churches now, download and enjoy, share with friends/family
www.gospelph.com/download/?song=949
www.gospelph.com/page/?song=949
www.gospelph.com/play/?song=949

plaetton:


" God is factual ".

Even the greatest of dummies don't go that far.

God is factual.
And not just factual, but even glaringly self-evident.

I have watched your temper rise gradually over the last few years to the point where you deliver such angry ad hominems against any person that asserts firmly the existence of God.

I have wondered how you are unable to see yourself in the very same religious fanatics who act the same way against atheists and persons of religions other than theirs.

The quiet and gentle truth is that you have become a serious fanatic on the question atheism. You have become a fundamentalist.

If god is factual, then I wonder why we are arguing about his existence everyday, and why you have pondered and even doubted his existence in recent past.

Many factual things have been debated for years in History. Only to later be discovered as factual. Indeed, self-evident things have been debated vehemently, with people taking diametrically opposed dogmatic stances in the trenches.

The truth is that some are blind and some do see. However when you tell a blind man a factual thing, he may need to use one of his other senses to touch, smell, hear or taste it before he believes it. This is normal with mankind.

~

Now, remember that there is also the mild matter perspective. Different perspectives do not necessarily change a factual thing. The old adage about the blind men and the elephant refers. The existence of the Elephant is factual but the blind men would argue about its nature based on the little part of it they can touch.

Therefore, your very bizzare argument that IF something is factual, there would NOT even be an argument on it - falls flat on its face.

My dear, this is the sort of unthinkable thing that fanaticism makes otherwise sane people say.

DeepSight:


God is factual.
And not just factual, but even glaringly self-evident.

I have watched your temper rise gradually over the last few years to the point where you deliver such angry ad hominems against any person that asserts firmly the existence of God.

I have wondered how you are unable to see yourself in the very same religious fanatics who act the same way against atheists and persons of religions other than theirs.

The quiet and gentle truth is that you have become a serious fanatic on the question atheism. You have become a fundamentalist.



Many factual things have been debated for years in History. Only to later be discovered as factual. Indeed, self-evident things have been debated vehemently, with people taking diametrically opposed dogmatic stances in the trenches.

The truth is that some are blind and some do see. However when you tell a blind man a factual thing, he may need to use one of his other senses to touch, smell, hear or taste it before he believes it. This is normal with mankind.

~

Now, remember that there is also the mild matter perspective. Different perspectives do not necessarily change a factual thing. The old adage about the blind men and the elephant refers. The existence of the Elephant is factual but the blind men would argue about its nature based on the little part of it they can touch.

Therefore, your very bizzare argument that IF something is factual, there would NOT even be an argument on it - falls flat on its face.

My dear, this is the sort of unthinkable thing that fanaticism makes otherwise sane people say.

True. Plaetton now has absolute knowledge. It is sad.

DeepSight:


God is factual.
And not just factual, but even glaringly self-evident.

I have watched your temper rise gradually over the last few years to the point where you deliver such angry ad hominems against any person that asserts firmly the existence of God.

I have wondered how you are unable to see yourself in the very same religious fanatics who act the same way against atheists and persons of religions other than theirs.

The quiet and gentle truth is that you have become a serious fanatic on the question atheism. You have become a fundamentalist.



Many factual things have been debated for years in History. Only to later be discovered as factual. Indeed, self-evident things have been debated vehemently, with people taking diametrically opposed dogmatic stances in the trenches.

The truth is that some are blind and some do see. However when you tell a blind man a factual thing, he may need to use one of his other senses to touch, smell, hear or taste it before he believes it. This is normal with mankind.

~

Now, remember that there is also the mild matter perspective. Different perspectives do not necessarily change a factual thing. The old adage about the blind men and the elephant refers. The existence of the Elephant is factual but the blind men would argue about its nature based on the little part of it they can touch.

Therefore, your very bizzare argument that IF something is factual, there would NOT even be an argument on it - falls flat on its face.

My dear, this is the sort of unthinkable thing that fanaticism makes otherwise sane people say.

My dear friend
You are right.
I do find myself getting much more irritated by religion, especially Christianity, and especially Pentecostal Christianity, the worse and most pernicious form of Christianity.
And yes, true to my nature, I do some self- auditing , from time to time.

My reasons are very simple. Pentecostal Christianity is taking Nigeria back to the dark ages.
It is a poison that poisons everything that is moral, ethical and decent in our society.

Now, if you don't see and recognize this, then I think people like you are either infected or just part of the problem.

Even my own teen, a brilliant science student , tries to use the garbage of Sunday school to mock and discredit the scientific principles that she is being taught in school.
I am alarmed, because our religiously suffused minds are the reasons for our chronic underdevelopment and underachievement in all facets of 21st century life.

As an African, I am ashamed, and very very angry.

And by the way, your reasons for believing in God are sundayschoolish.

N:B

You would be very naive to underestimate the power of mockery in degrading lethal stone-age mythologies.
That's what I do here.
No apologies.

plaetton:


My dear friend
You are right.
I do find myself getting much more irritated by religion, especially Christianity, and especially Pentecostal Christianity, the worse and most pernicious form of Christianity.
And yes, true to my nature, I do some self- auditing , from time to time.

My reasons are very simple. Pentecostal Christianity is taking Nigeria back to the dark ages.
It is a poison that poisons everything that is moral, ethical and decent in our society.

Now, if you don't see and recognize this, then I think people like you are either infected or just part of the problem.

I would be shocked to my bone if after all these years you would imagine that I perhaps have some toward or salutary opinion of Pentecostal Christianity - particularly the Nigerian breed.

Is your memory so short or you just make unnecessary assumptions.

This is the thing about you - you remind me about a gentleman who I had never chatted with on this Forum before. I merely affirmed that I believe in God. From this statement alone this man went to town condemning me as a brainwashed Christian.

How he jumped from a theistic statement to the fact that I am Christian, is just amazing.
He didnt say Muslim, he just assumed - Christian!
You do the exact same thing.

I have watched you for a while as you make your assumptions.
Painful to watch, for a man of such depth.

I am still non-religious.
I reminded some here that I recently gave a short speech disavowing the importation of religions and saying firmly that there should be nothing wrong with African Traditional Religion. I clearly informed my audience that both Islam and Christianity have elements of what is called paganism, and that there is no reason to call African Traditional Religion Pagan. Not many online atheists here would do that - particularly considering the audience I was speaking to.

I even doubt if you would have the balls.
So please watch your assumptions.

Even my own teen, a brilliant science student , tries to use the garbage of Sunday school to mock and discredit the scientific principles that she is being taught in school.
I am alarmed, because our religiously suffused minds are the reasons for our chronic underdevelopment and underachievement in all facets of 21st century life.

As an African, I am ashamed, and very very angry.

I can entirely understand. As the father, why don't you gently and slowly show your views to the still growing mind. Do not be too forceful though. I am sure you understand how not to confuse an impressionable mind.

And by the way, your reasons for believing in God are sundayschoolish.

Fair enough, you are free to your talk. But talk is talk. We have been through the philosophy and logic and even science underpinning the glaring existence of God too many times to start again. At least I dont have the strength now.

All I can inform you of is that your reasons for disbelieving are quite worse.
Also 99 per cent of your arguments are against the existence of God as conceived in Religions. That's sad.

I have told you to pit yourself against the logic and philosophy of the matter too many times.

N:B

You would be very naive to underestimate the power of mockery in degrading lethal stone-age mythologies.
That's what I do here.
No apologies.

You are very well aware that I did that for many years. Just go see my old threads. Full of venom against the religionists.
I simply grew up. It's childish. And in reality, it makes many more of them retreat more forcefully into their beliefs.

It simply Doesn't work.
One off the reasons is simple: it betrays an attitude that does not show the inner moral fibre, sensitivity and maturity of say, a Catholic Priest at his best. Humans Judge many things on inner vibe. The inner vibe of a good Catholic Priest is gentility, compassion, maturity and never given to loud mockery. No matter how logically you argue, if you go about mocking people, they will never regard your message as being as deep and as worthy the message of a man with calm and sensitivity. They simply see the real him and see the real you, and choose the real him.

I don't know if you understand this. If you don't try and remember that most human beings are more interested in finding meaning within themselves than they are in all the scientific puzzles dreamable.
And there will always be scientific puzzles enough to last eternity.
So what should a rational human focus on?

This is not to displace the role of the scientist in anyway though.

UyiIredia:


God isn't absent. The existence of God is factual. However I have learnt that atheism isn't based on facts but poor thinking.

It's more the other way round.