₦airaland Forum

Enigma:
No, I am not trying to make an argument at all. I really just want to understand your thinking ---- because I have seen one or two people here argue that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing.  

I never said they are the same thing. I said an agnostic is an atheist.
It goes like this
An atheist is one who does not believe in God.
An agnostic does not believe in God,
therefore an agnostic is an atheist.

Im sure if I say that a horse is an animal, nobody will turn around to say that they mean the same thing ie an animal is a horse.

An atheist is defined simply as one who has no belief in God. The definition of agnosticism is more than non belief, but as far as the agnostic fulfills that requirement for atheism (ie non belief in a God(s)) then he is one.

The decisive question is does an agnostic believe in God ? If the answer is no, then he is an atheist.
If the answer is he is undecided/uncertain/has no evidence for or against, then he still does not believe which makes him an atheist.

This is simple enough, so I wont be replying further on this thread (as I promised my boo). I just want to clear this matter up.

EDIT
I hope nobody here is going to suggest that disbelief in God is the same thing as believing there is no God.

debosky:
In your own sequence I was the one that mentioned the other lights first, so who gave who wiggle room? The fact was that homer had overlooked the mention of other lights and focused solely on the seeming 'plants before the sun' issue. The fact that light was created before the plants renders the argument moot - the light could have been the sun but only mentioned/described subsequently. Even if it wasn't, there was a source of photons (i.e light) which would permit plants to photosynthesize so the issue of sun before plants or vice versa becomes irrelevant.

Facts are indeed sacred - what you need is a source of photons, not the sun for plants to photosynthesize.

While I did not explain the sequence of events, I did not have to - the existence of light before plants is all that is required, be it the sun or some 'other light'.

Yeah I concede that point. Apologies are due. I was juggling too many things in the office to concentrate. Still, I do not see how you can claim from that exchange to have demolished anything. Even you agree that you arent certain and cannot answer definitively.

debosky:
Not in the least - but in the same vein, being written in the bible does not make it false either.

I don't disagree with the photons and wavelengths requirement, but since the bible is silent on the wavelength and photon characteristics of light created, you cannot conclude that it was unable to support photosynthesis. Besides, the latter mention of the sun may have been an elaboration on the light created in the earlier verse, but I am not certain of this. That is why I said I cannot answer the question definitively.

thehomer:
Wow. Thanks a lot. I didn't even know I spent that much time on it. I must have really had strong hopes of enlightenment on that thread.

Ishilove:
Sweetheart will you please stop arguing? There really is no gain to it. I'm a pentecostal christian who strongly disapproves of the catholic mode of worship. By the time i debated with THOSE folks once or twice,i realised there's just no point. We are all firmly stuck with our personal beliefs,whether theist or atheist. Only few ever venture out of their comfort zones to seek the ultimate truth

Ok honey, for you I will.

karpenter:
@jayriginal
"You have my sympathy"!!! That's the arrogance of strong belief. Are you sympathising with him because he's ignorant and you are right? You guys are all the same, stuck to your own opinion and never see reasons with anything contrary.

Actually you mistake me. If you havent read our exchanges do so. If we all agree with each other, we will not make much progress. When we argue (not quarrel) we can listen to each other and learn.
He took it upon himself to contribute to this thread, unfortunately, he seems to have a problem with people with opposing views.
If you read, you will see the issue was a simple one and he seems to be working himself up over it.
His parting shot contained a veiled insult to me, and if that is the attitude he takes, rather than fire an innuendo of my own, I sympathize with him.

debosky:
You left because one of your cornerstones (plants coming before the sun) was blown to smithereens by the existence of light before plants according to Genesis.

This is simply not true. I followed the debate. Let me give the exchange here (in sequence) as it pertains to the issue of plants coming before the sun.

thehomer:
e.g there were plants before the sun was available. How do you explain such a sequence of occurrences?

debosky:
I can't definitively answer this question.

thehomer:
Why not? The Bible gives a definite answer. Do you not believe the answer in the Bible?

debosky:
The bible does not explain why the plants were recorded in the creation account before the sun's mention. If it's not specifically in the bible, I can't explain the reason why it's thus recorded.

thehomer:
Do you think there were plants before the sun? I'm not asking why but whether you think it happened.

debosky:
It depends - Genesis said light was created before the plants, so it is possible that the later verses just explained what light was created initially by God. I don't know what happened.

thehomer:
No, it talks about some other light and later explicitly states that the sun was created. Is it possible that there are other sources of light. Claiming you don't know what happened doesn't get you off because I'm asking what you think about the plants and the sun. Which of them came first?

debosky:
If the ‘other light’ could generate photons required for photosynthesis by plants, then it renders the question of which came first irrelevant. In any case, without being present at creation, I can only speculate. What I think is not rof the essence here as it doesn't change what happened at the beginning.

thehomer:
Now you're just making things up trying to force reality to fit your Bible. That is a terrible approach to knowledge. Sure what you think doesn't change what happened but it goes a long way in showing what you believe and why. And that is important if we're to have any serious discussion.

debosky:
What did I make up? Did the bible not talk about light being created before the plants?  Are photons not the basic unit of light and the requirement for photosynthesis? Just what part did I make up? I'm not forcing any reality into anything - the bible explicitly talks about light existing before plants.

thehomer:
You're forcing reality to fit the Bible. What was the source of this light with photons? You see, you're unable to tell fact from fiction as you've just demonstrated.

debosky:
I’m struggling to see how I am forcing anything. The bible mentions light was in existence before plants, I didn’t make that up.

thehomer:
I don't see any reason why I should continue this discussion with you since you've made up your mind to believe whatever is in the Bible. If you're unable to tell fact from fiction in the Bible, then how will you be able to come to understand the actual origins of man without using myths?

Good luck with your Bible based thinking.

debosky:
I have stated this from my very first post - the bible's account of God creating man is what I believe. If you didn't accept that, why engage in this long winded discussion about inferences and the like?

How you can now claim to have blown anything to smithereens is beyond me, especially seeing that thehomer gave you ample room to wriggle in by telling you about other lights before the sun.
Facts are sacred !
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-766089.96.html

blackpanda:
:oSilence is the best answer!

You have my sympathy.

blackpanda:
Common sense says that if you do not know something, u shld ask or at least make an effort to do some research. So far, your common simply depict your refusal to understand the difference between these two belief systems. You dont support you conclusion with any evidence or references. Have you met an atheist or an agnostic before?

What evidence/reference are you looking for ? Must I provide a reference for something as simple as this ? You yourself even provided a reference. Is that not enough ?
You say I refuse to understand the difference, but I believe I pointed that out to you. That was not even my main point. My main point was that an agnostic was an atheist. I said this because an atheist lacks a belief in God and so does an agnostic. I expected you to focus on this. Your explanation of an agnostic

blackpanda:
Agnostics on the other hand believe in God, but just not in any religion. i.e we believe that the idea of God can simply not be explained by any single institution. It is a continous learning process, and one must continually be open minded to the endless possiblities and uncertainties of the "ifs"

is much more an explanation of Deism than agnosticism.

Talking about disbelieving or being uncertain or having insufficient evidence for the existence or otherwise of God, is a mere play on words. The agnostic does not believe in God. Simple !

The fact is that when it comes to beliefs, no body has the answer to all questions.

If you say so.

If you bother to read a little, you will understand the background from which people can to the realisation that there may or may not be a "God".

If you learn a little humility you will understand a lot more.

You dont have to agree with these beliefs, but at least pls dont try to trivialise them. Not everybody is open to swallowing what has been shoved down our throats, hook, line and sinker!

I guess I'm the bad guy here. The cockroach can never be innocent in a gathering of fowls. What have I trivialized or attempted to force down your throat ?

That is why i said it is a countinous learning process. It is the ability to question "why" some things are, and to shed doubts on certain falacious and unsubstantiated conclusions. While some have chosen to cling to religion or atheism as a means of rationalising the world process, others are continously studying it.

**

If you say there is a God, can you prove it to a neutral person- i mean without any religious text?
But then again, when you look at the wonders of the world, it makes you ask how such things came to be. Could it be modeled after a superior being?

God cannot be proven with or without a religious text. Do I understand you to mean that the "wonders of the world" are your means of proving God without a religious text ?
Though you seem to want to call yourself an agnostic, you really do seem like a Deist.

You like to ask yourself questions dont you ? Could it be that it was ten Gods instead of one ? Could it be that there was a God, but he killed himself and made the universe spring forth from the energy resulting from his demise ?
Could it be that there is no God ?

pynkspyce:
debates about religion and politics should be avoided if your sanity is important to you.

Amen

^^ blackpanda, sequel to the above, when I say an agnostic is an atheist, I simply say so in the context of both of them lacking a belief in a deity.

^^ blackpanda
Does an agnostic believe in God ? Its a simple answer, yes or no. Saying he has no evidence or is uncertain whether god exists or not is not an answer. Without certainty or evidence, can the agnostic be said to have a belief in God ?


You can also think about it this way
Mr A: "Do you believe in God ?"
Mr B; "I am not sure whether God exists or not"
Mr A; "That means you dont believe in God".

Lets not try to complicate things here.

Succy4luv:
This is a question 4 the atheists,  If u dont believe in God or any diety, wat then do u believe in? Pls i need a better clarification of what atheists believe in. Thanks

An atheist does not believe in anything. Must someone believe in something (pertaining to the existence of the supernatural) ?

blackpanda:
I am not an atheist but i guess they believe in Nature, and in the physical things we can see and not in any supernatural or extraterrestial being.

Agnostics on the other hand believe in God, but just not in any religion. i.e we believe that the idea of God can simply not be explained by any single institution. It is a continous learning process, and one must continually be open minded to the endless possiblities and uncertainties of the "ifs"

Wrong guess. Atheism is not the belief in nature. An agnostic is actually an atheist. They do not believe in God either. What you defined is closer to Deism than any other thing.

Ishilove:
Aww,honey i'm sorry. What has happened to u in my absence,dear one?

Love sickness of the most heart wrenching type.

1Godfather:
There was a time when one could reasonably discuss with an atheist on belief and non-belief and expect a polite but firm discussion. Ultimately, the theist may not succeed in getting the atheist to see his point of view, but the exchange would be as cordial as it was passionate. This is because, the atheist would be interested in showing why he is not fully persuaded to believe. Perhaps, if you run into a decent friend or acquaintance who is ideologically opposed to you on the God question, such a frank but civil discussion can truly occur.

Not exactly true I'm afraid. Maybe you arent the rabid foaming at the mouth God-defending type, but trust me many are. You wouldnt know because you believe in God. Try pretending to be an atheist for a week and see the type of reactions you will get. Maybe you will understand then. What you wrote above is what should be and not what is.
The arrogance of many christians is sickening to say the least.

Alas these days, with the birth of this New Atheism, unsophisticated and full of sound and fury, it has become quite fashionable in atheist circles to deride, cajole, mock, insult and pollute theists and theism. This is what usually passes for intelligent debates with many of today's atheists--some haughty posturing borne out of a sincere atheistic belief that virtually all theists are silly and DELUSIONAL. It is no wonder that these discussions quickly devolve into a mud-slinging match because people cease engaging honestly and respectfully. Much heat expended but no light thrown on the issue before consideration. After one has tried a few times to discuss issues of great personal import with a person who seems more disposed to aggression, one inevitably tires of the whole affair. Perhaps, like some have suggested, there is really no point to these discussions. Atheists can gather together, as often as they are wont, listen to speeches (read sermons) delivered by their atheistic high priests, build up and exhort one another in their common God-disbelief, share an intimate fellowship of universal mockery or umbrage at some offensive actions from the faith arena, and disperse to their respective homes--ALL WITHOUT BOTHERING ABOUT THESE 'IGNORANT' THEISTS!

Atheism is a broad term covering people without belief in God (as he is worshiped and defined by man). It is wrong to lump all atheists together just as you cannot lump all theists together. The only common factor is a lack of belief or a belief (respectively) in a deity. Not all atheists share the same ideals. I personally do not hold all theists to be silly and delusional and Im sure few atheists do. When the debate becomes heated and personal, a lot of ad hominems fly in. That is unfortunate and goes for both sides.
One notorious theist on this forum has suggested that atheists are like mosquitoes and can be killed as such without consequence. I dont recall an atheist saying anything quote as vile (I'm not suggesting that all atheists have been polite here, on the contrary they have traded a few good ones but nothing I can recall as dangerous)
It takes very little to get the insults flying.
You talk about mocking and cajoling theists, but I challenge you to pretend to be an atheist for a week and see what happens (not online please).

But I think that would be too easy--for how else is an atheist going to satiate the inner hunger to rid theists of their meddlesome and 'ignorant' God-belief if they can't utilize sundry web fora, Youtube videos, billboards and citybuses to fulminate on the ills of religion? I mean, how dare anyone hate on atheists anyway? Aren't they the hallowed few who managed to see through the puerile sunday-school caricature of Christian orthodoxy they were unfortunately given to when they were much younger? Aren't they the uber-logical geniuses against whom every contrary opinion must be the product of some delusion and faulty reasoning? Why should the largely 'ignorant' mass of humanity squirm upon being upbraided by the ever-so-gracious but nonetheless 'completely rational' and 'supremely intelligent' atheist? Shouldn't they consider the atheist's sophomoric diatribe against theism, or his endless bellyaching over the ills committed by religious people, an act of charity? Oh well, I don't know about you--but in the interest of peace, and to massage the egos of newly-minted atheists, who are eager to jump into a debate to vomit the latest things he has picked up in college, perhaps it is better to just sit still and allow an atheist to lecture for all he is worth.

And here, you make a serious error. Sure there is a plethora of atheist literature these days both scientific and philosophical, but I hardly know of any atheist who was convinced by these means. Take you for example, you might have read a few of these literature but you arent convinced. This is because the road to atheism is often a long and gradual one. It starts from questioning that which has been taken for granted, from being brave enough to toss your indoctrination aside and critically think through things. Consider that a lot of atheists came from theist backgrounds.
Personally, I never needed any literature to become an atheist, I only came across these things much later on. I do not need to know the origin of life to be an atheist. I propose evolution as a far more plausible theory than the creation story. This does not mean I believe in evolution; I just hold it to be more credible. Therefore, I might pick up a book on evolution to understand it better.
Anyone who says the theory of evolution made him an atheist most likely had serious doubts about his religion but was only looking for better proof before he dumped religion. The point has been made that many christians accept the theory of evolution. The difference is that they blend it in to fit the creation story.
A religious person who sees iron proof of science contradicting the bible will tend to reinforce his faith with that very proof and blend it in.
The only thing needed to be an atheist (as far as the christian God is concerned) is the bible. As Isaac Asimov said, "properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived". We have so many theists here that have read atheist literature and they are not moved simply because they hold on tenaciously to their faith. They will never be moved by literature or youtube videos. It starts from the self, from an inner search, from a desire to ask oneself the question "what if what I was taught was wrong" or "if this is so, why doesnt this follow" or "would I believe this if I was born to another faith" etc
Your assumption is wrong. Just because people quote from books is not proof that those books made them atheists. In much the same way, christians quote from other christian authorities or sources.
I think (I may be wrong) that most atheist debates are against the christian god, not Allah or any other god. If that is correct, you need to ask your self the reason for that. I personally hold that it is the arrogance of the christian. No muslim has ever come to preach to me neither has any member of any other religion. Its always christians which is fine if they will simply stop when I tell them that I am not interested. They never do in my experience. They always want to win and save your soul. It gets annoying.
Here is another challenge for you, next time anyone (even Jehovah's witnesses) meets you to preach with you, tell them you arent interested or that you dont believe in God (dont tell them you are a muslim or a pagan) and watch what happens. Maybe you will begin to understand the dynamics of this thing after that.

Sadly, I have noticed that too many atheists are rather diffident about honestly sharing what they truly believe; you know, about constructing a positive worldview and philosophy that is completely devoid of God and its implications. Worse, an alarming number of the atheists who feign a serious dedication to science are actually terrible at it; do not seem to understand its finite scope, and regrettably cannot lecture on it. But of course, that shouldn't matter--nothing is as satisfying as a smug dismissal of your theistic opposition as a bunch of deluded dingbats. Its a nice zinger, and I am sure if you deploy that characterization often, in no time, you would rise within atheist ranks. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone--intolerance is a vice only when theists employ that against atheists. When atheists show intolerance for theists, it can only be because they are genuinely concerned about the theist's refusal to see the light.

We dont need God to be good. That is one thing that is surprisingly difficult for many theists to see. As for the science you mention, I have to point out to you that an alarming number of the theist scientists suffer from this flaw as well.
I think your write up has been largely one sided but it does contain some truths here and there. Try the challenges I gave you. You might be surprised.

Ishilove:
Hmmm, don't agree with ya,dear one. I'm a "typical Christian" as you put it,but i'm also very liberal {some of my closest friends are atheists} 'cos I believe in "live and let live". However i base my belief in God on personal experience. The society we live in is a very religious one,so not having a religiön is regarded as abnormal. That's just the way things are.

Sweetim, I think we mean quite different things when we use the word typical. Its one of the limitations of language. Live and let live is the way to go as far as I am concerned. There's nothing wrong with seeking to understand differences between each other, as long as it is done with civility. While I was serving, we had a muslim Corper around with us. It was from him that I learnt that a lot of Muslims cannot read the Quran, they just recite what they learn. Not once did anybody mock him or treat him differently.
When I say that the typical christian is logic proof, I mean that you cannot expect them to see reason with you on issues of faith. The closest I have gotten is "I understand, even I have many questions about christianity, but if I dwell on them, I will get lost. I rather continue believing in God". That is an acknowledgment that there are many question marks hovering around the faith issue, but the typical christian does not want to address them and would push anyone who does away.
Again in my NYSC camp, there was a friend I had, who took it upon herself to save my soul. I patiently listened to her and at a point, she mentioned the virgin birth. When she had finished, rather than telling her I didnt believe in the virgin birth, I told her that the grail message interpretation was far superior to the christian interpretation. I was about to explain it to her and she covered her ears, saying, she didnt want to hear. That happens a lot.

The most vocal christians on this forum actually are bad representatives.
As far as christians go, you are definitely OK in my books

@op. Its prolly best she broke up with you because marriage is about compatibility. U two were not. . .um. . .religiously (??) compatible as Mr Daviddylan has pointed out. You being an atheist,would you have wanted your children brought up in the Christian faith? Don't think so.

This type of christianity, I do not like but it is what it is.

^^ You are right. Most times folks hear that I do not believe in God, they want to know why. I usually politely decline and tell them to leave things as they are. Of course they never do. Many infact go as far as calling you a fool. It is inevitable then, that sometimes a debate arises which neither side can win.
Your typical christian is logic proof and the atheist is faithless (in terms of the supernatural). No side can make any progress.

harakiri:
@davidylan

You just couldn't help yourself could you? You had to compare atheists to all the disgusting things you could think of e.g dirty person and over weight people. How "nice" of you. Was that really necessary? And yet you say Christians don't discriminate. No wahala. Nothing do you.

I saw that and wanted to respond to it, but I thought it wiser not to. Its rather unfortunate.

mazaje:
Try being an atheist for a day in Nigeria and see if you don't lose out on many things

So true.

mazaje:
Not cowards. . .I have seen christains hide their identity in places like kano and jigawa because they do not need the unnecessary persecutions of the muslims, I have seen adherent of the grail message hide their identity as well. . . .If people will let us be, no body will hide his or her identity. . .But what do are you to do with bunch of people that believe so much in religion to the extent they they are always killing each other because of it?. . . .

Well said.

There has been debate on only one of the posters questions. Personally, I am interested in the rest, so I'll just highlight the other questions that need answering

sarmy:
1) Why can't our church leaders & most xtains keep all the intructions in the bible if they are 100% word of God 

2) If some verses of the bible are not 100% word of God, how do we differenciate them, why are some xtains equating bible as God

Any volunteers ?

Slightly off topic, but I'm never so eager to debate religious folks in public for the simple reason that I know its an argument that can never be won. Plus you end up looking like an evil person. Even on this forum, certain individuals have suggested that. They have also suggested that we can be killed without any consequence since as the logic goes, we arent humans.
That may seem extreme but a lot of people hold similar views though to differing degrees. Funny thing is most people dont know I dont believe in God, and they are shocked when they find out.
Trying to veer back to the topic; I havent personally gotten in trouble for not believing in God.

Ironically, when I was serving, I taught Christian Religious Knowledge  . It was either that or literature, so I chose CRk cos it was far easier.
My father said it was like Karl Marx teaching democracy.

toba:
no wonder many atheists in Nigeria are cowards. Im sure some of those that rants on NL will be church goers on Sundays in fear of being rejected. oma se oooooooooooo

How many atheists in Nigeria do you know and what qualifies them as cowards ?

Ishilove:
Tsk tsk tsk,my love are you still at it?

Ooooh Ishi my darling, how have you been ?
You abandoned me and look what has happened to me in the meantime.

Frosbel and his cohorts want to be left alone to practice their intellectual celibacy

Thats the only way to keep the faith.

Joagbaje:
But how come they don't publicise healings and miracles  which had been medically proven. They only give attention to the ones that went wrong. If 90 people get healed and 5 didn't . Why is it the 5 that will be picked . What about the 90?

I think it is the other way round. There are many doubtful cases of healing, which are hyped and presented as evidence. You hardly hear about the failures because the way religion (christianity in particular works) is that if a disaster afflicts many and one is saved, it is taken as evidence of Gods handwork. Nobody remembers that many of the others were also christians who God could have saved too.
We evaluate God on lower standards than we would evaluate our fellow man.

When an objective study comes out, you then complain about the "few" bad cases being emphasized.

thehomer:
That is the Christian God in action.

And all the others I have heard about as well.

godspeed:
yes the pictures are talking-talking lies

click on the following link and watch your lies collapse like a pack of cards.

be sure to click on the respective link for each spurious miracle pictures

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Miracles

Very informative. I learnt a new word today (pareidolia).

Lying for Allah is acceptable according to the eminent Islamic scholar Imam Ghazali who wrote:
"When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible"
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/10_Meter_Tall_Human_Skeleton
Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745.

Deols try not to take everything on the internet seriously.

deols:
i checked your link and I find it fascinating. People would do so much in order to prove anything wrong.
1) While some of the refutals are logical, others are plain hypocrisy and lies.
2) The fact that other similarities can be brought up does not prove them false. It just means you could read other meanings to them.

3) Islam was not spread by miracles. We just like to feed our souls with the extra ordinaries. They are not the real deal.

1) Which ones are logical and which are not ?
2) The fact that a picture is put on the internet does not prove it real
3) Now that is the best thing you have said on this thread since you started it. If you had started with that statement, the thread may have taken a different direction.

Why dont you read the bible from cover to cover, or you could ask the holy spirit for "revelation".

frosbel:
^^^

Go back to your cave and stop trolling Christian threads

Is that all you can come up with ?

Is this the best you could get ? It is a really feeble attempt.
Comparing an almighty God that is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing to a mere mortal man (the barber) is just wrong. God can do whatever he wants but he never does. The barber is severely limited by his own humanity. He can only do so much at a time.

Sure the barber has to wait for people to come to him, but then, he does not have a millionth of the powers of God. What about babies that bad things happen to ? God was waiting for them to come to him ?
What about people that have never heard of Jesus ? Bad things happen to them because they havent come to God?

You need to do better.

frosbel:
Did I say this, wow my memory must be going !

The key word is "implying".

If I were to explain to you, would it makes things better, will you with an open mind consider the facts ?

I think not.

You are obstinate in your analysis of scripture, already approaching the bible from the standpoint of bias and with the cloak of a scoffer.

therefore try as you may, you will never understand the scriptures until you submit your proud heart to God !

"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:16

You take liberties at quoting and interpreting scriptures yet you wish to deny others the same right ?
Why should I accept your version ?

Da floxy:
@zataxs.pls if u knw d u lov your life beta stp postin here, because God is nt jokin wit dis our post. Let me c your infedel post here again, bet me, if your life doesn't b anoda tin. U knw dis is nt AKACHUKWU CLEARANCE OHAEGBU, d Son of God

Empty threats !
Make your point and let others make theirs as well.

Just by the way, how do you know that god is not joking with "dis our post".
Are you a prophet ? Does god joke ? If yes, share some examples of his humour with us.

Also, are you inferring that you are the son of god ?

And nobody went blind.

A better way to prove God is to say a prayer that he can answer.

Dear God, if you really exist, do not show yourself. Continue to act as if you do not exist. Amen.