Does God exist?

[dkdempsey]

Yes, probably. Seems to make sense, gives the universe some order I suppose. Of course there is no objective proof for nor against. But don’t let that stop you from believing.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi MegaTherion,

I don’t believe we’ve spoken before. I’m curious about this:

MegaTherion:

You’ve misunderstood – I mean “contemporary” in the sense of “contemporary with Jesus.” In other words, I’m looking for eyewitness accounts that were from that same time period – an account that dates from 1-33 CE, rather than the 65-110 CE period in which the synoptic gospels were written. Or accounts of people from around 1-33 CE writing about Jesus and his miracles.

Would you accept the letters of Paul as being contemporaneous?

 

[punkforchrist]

Here’s a super-quick apologetic:

Does God exist?

1. Changing things exist.
2. Everything that changes is composed of act and potency.
3. No potency can actualize itself.
4. Therefore, there must be something purely actual.

This “Pure Act” (or pure actuality, so-to-speak) has traditionally been associated with God, since it is the ground of all being - all power, all knowledge, all existence whatsoever.

Has God revealed Himself in any special way?

Christians claim that God has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who authenticated his claim to divinity by his resurrection from the dead.

If Jesus was not raised from the dead, then his disciples would have known it. Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had been raised, as is evidenced by their willingness to undergo persecution. The question, then, is this: what explains their sincere belief? Mass hallucinations don’t have the uniformity that the appearances of Jesus had, so hallucinations are highly improbable. The truth is, I just don’t see any theory that better explains the relevant data than the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

God is Truth. God is Existence. Everything comes from God. Lots of words but the answer is still simple but complete: Jesus

 

[Dwyer]

You have to be careful – apologists like to play games with words. They’ll convince you that “everything takes faith, even science” so that all of a sudden, all beliefs become equally likely to be true. Or, as MindOverMatter did, they’ll try to convince you that atheists “want” there to be no god and that’s the one and only reason that they’re atheists.

MegaTherion, don’t you think you might be overstating the case for almost near certitude of science “fact” just a bit???

If you study the secular philosopher David Hume’s study of causality, Hume says one can observe a something in nature occurring over and over, but one cannot prove that x causes y.

(Hume also said there is no observational evidence for God).

Typical scientific laws are unrestrictedly general statements, which also assert causal statements like “if you heat a body of water at sea-level atmospheric pressure it will boil when the temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius.”

It may be that every time in history that water has been heated it has boiled at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, but that does not prove that the heating causes the boiling, and it certainly does not prove that the next time I heat water it will boil at 100 degrees Celsius.

Perhaps, next time, things will be different.

However many Xs I observe and find to have the property of Y, that is no proof that the next X I see will be Y.

It may not be.

I may come to expect that it will be, but that is a psychological effect, and is something quite different from a logical proof: it is mere association of ideas.

We shall certainly go on expecting water to boil at 100 degrees Celsius, but we have nothing that can seriously be called proof that it will; and therefore we cannont, strictly speaking, say we know that it will.

According to Hume, we do not realy know anything; we have our expectations, but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

Hume believed people should hold their opinions diffidently, knowing them to be fallible, and should respect those of others.

So, even scientific “facts” cannot be known for certain.

Do we know all of this 100% for sure? No, of course not. There’s still a lot more to learn. But just because we probably can’t know everything 100% for sure **doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything at all about reality **-- just because there are some limits to our knowledge doesn’t mean that every argument is equally valid.

Arguments with lots and lots of evidence are very likely to be true; it doesn’t take faith to accept them.

Arguments without evidence (taken on faith) might be true or false – but we have no way of confirming their veracity or distinguishing such beliefs from fantasy.

So, in short, it’s not an “act of faith” to accept evolution, even if we’re only 99% sure. Some new evidence could change the way we think about evolution tomorrow – but we would have to adjust to new evidence. There would be nothing that would require us to have “faith.”

Hmmm, I think you’re overstating it.

I think a fair answer to the question about whether God exists is we don’t know for sure one way or the other; that there is no direct observational evidence for God.

However, that doesn’t mean necessarily that there is no God.

I trust and believe there is a God, the God of Christianity, and as a human being I’m free to make that make that choice for myself.

Yes, the belief is not based on direct observational evidence, but that doesn’t bother me at all.

 

[1holycatholic]

MegaTherion, don’t you think you might be overstating the case for almost near certitude of science “fact” just a bit???

If you study the secular philosopher David Hume’s study of causality, Hume says one can observe a something in nature occurring over and over, but one cannot prove that x causes y.

(Hume also said there is no observational evidence for God).

Typical scientific laws are unrestrictedly general statements, which also assert causal statements like “if you heat a body of water at sea-level atmospheric pressure it will boil when the temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius.”

It may be that every time in history that water has been heated it has boiled at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, but that does not prove that the heating causes the boiling, and it certainly does not prove that the next time I heat water it will boil at 100 degrees Celsius.

Perhaps, next time, things will be different.

However many Xs I observe and find to have the property of Y, that is no proof that the next X I see will be Y.

It may not be.

I may come to expect that it will be, but that is a psychological effect, and is something quite different from a logical proof: it is mere association of ideas.

We shall certainly go on expecting water to boil at 100 degrees Celsius, but we have nothing that can seriously be called proof that it will; and therefore we cannont, strictly speaking, say we know that it will.

According to Hume, we do not realy know anything; we have our expectations, but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

Hume believed people should hold their opinions diffidently, knowing them to be fallible, and should respect those of others.

So, even scientific “facts” cannot be known for certain.
Hmmm, I think you’re overstating it.

I think a fair answer to the question about whether God exists is we don’t know for sure one way or the other; that there is no direct observational evidence for God.

However, that doesn’t mean necessarily that there is no God.

I trust and believe there is a God, the God of Christianity, and as a human being I’m free to make that make that choice for myself.

Yes, the belief is not based on direct observational evidence, but that doesn’t bother me at all.

Hume completely undermines the scientific method. :doh2:

Not that it matters. You are arguing with proponents of scientism, not science.

 

[PMG]

Believning in God requires a leap of faith, just as believing there is no God requires a leap of “anti-faith”, if you will. There is no PROOF that God exists or doesn’t. There is, however, ample evidence of God’s existence. To believe that there is no God whatsoever requires overlooking alot of strong circumstantial evidence.

 

[agangbern]

Hi, agangbern,

You’ve misunderstood – I mean “contemporary” in the sense of “contemporary with Jesus.” In other words, I’m looking for eyewitness accounts that were from that same time period – an account that dates from 1-33 CE, rather than the 65-110 CE period in which the synoptic gospels were written. Or accounts of people from around 1-33 CE writing about Jesus and his miracles.

The thing is, the accounts themselves have to be from that time period – they can’t be accounts claiming to be about that time period.

So the account must date from 1-33 CE, rather than 65-100 CE. But Mathew and John were among His contemporaries and they put into document what they personally knew about Him.

By the way, would you please explain to me what you understand by 1-33 CE?

 

[BlazingBolt]

Even atheists know that God exists. Becoming an Atheist is an act of will, it’s a denial of a belief in God. Yeah they argue it is simply a lack of belief, and that is the technical definition of atheism, but in practice that is not the case. Even the rare that says he never believed in God since he was born is simply a liar. An innate belief in a deity is part of the human condition, not an antiquated superstition. Most will admit to becoming atheist’s and their is always mitigating circumstances that cause it…in other words their is always bias involved…it’s a deeply personal decision and so there has to be. Whatever the case human beings are naturally theists. Atheism is a symptom of pride and an act of the will. If they were humble they would at least claim to be agnostic.

 

[Snerticus]

Well, I agree that we probably can’t prove anything to 100% degree certainty, but I’m talking not talking about 100% certainty when I say “facts.”

You certainly seemed to be saying that the way I took it.

Nobody who actually knows anything about the subject has (or needs to have) “faith” in Darwin. That notion is very silly. …
If we found out tomorrow that Darwin had just fabricated The Origin of the Species to mock scientists, it wouldn’t make a shred of difference… “Faith” in Darwin (of all people!) has nothing to do with accepting evolution.

I’ll tell you what, if he had just mocked it, I’d say my faith would be shaken in him at that point, wouldn’ you? Remember, I didn’t say I had faith in evolution, I said I had faith in Darwin.

On the other hand, it is an act of faith to believe in something like a god or spirits or the thousands of other supernatural things people have believed in since the dawn of time.

Wait, faith and act of faith are two different things. I know you have faith in things, I can see it in your writing. But I know you don’t have an act of faith. That too, I looked up on dictionary.com just to make sure I didn’t make an oops. Which of course, I’m quite cabable of… especially since I haven’t had any sleep since yesterday afternoon at 3pm. I’m pretty exhausted right now.

Some of these people were at one time believers, and they are disappointed that there is no evidence at all for the existence of god.

And some were not, and didn’t even expect God to “hit 'em with a spiritual 2 x 4”. They were pretty happy in their unbelief as well. But they’re happier now.

Really… gotta go… too tired…

 

[agangbern]

Yes, probably. Seems to make sense, gives the universe some order I suppose. Of course there is no objective proof for nor against. But don’t let that stop you from believing.

Jesus Christ is the objective proof of the fact that God exists! We simply have to know Him and follow Him in order to realize this truth ourselves. "When perfected, a disciple will be like his Teacher".

 

[MegaTherion]

Would you accept the letters of Paul as being contemporaneous?

As far as I know, the letters of Paul date from several decades after Jesus’ supposed death, and Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus (at least not in physical form – he claimed to have met his spirit on the road to Damascus).

So I’m not really sure what Paul’s letters prove.

1. Changing things exist.
2. Everything that changes is composed of act and potency.
3. No potency can actualize itself.
4. Therefore, there must be something purely actual.

As far as we know, the universe began to assume its current form at the moment of the Big Bang. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang (and in fact “before the Big Bang,” before time, is technically a contradiction in terms). Among many possibilities, it is possible that the universe existed in a quantum state. There’s a good chance that this state (something completely natural) was the “purely actual” or “purely potential” or whatever you’re calling it.

Dwyer:

Hume

Well, Hume is technically right that we can’t “prove” causality. We could obtain evidence tomorrow that would totally upset our knowledge of cause and effect.

However, in practical terms, until such evidence comes along, we can and do make statements about the world that are supported by the evidence that we do have.

The fact that we continually obtain beneficial results from the science based upon the notion of causality is evidence that causality is likely true (or at the very least, useful).

I think a fair answer to the question about whether God exists is we don’t know for sure one way or the other; that there is no direct observational evidence for God.

However, that doesn’t mean necessarily that there is no God.

I agree. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don’t claim that there’s absolutely no god (or gods) anywhere in the universe (or beyond the universe). I have no evidence to support such a claim.

However, I don’t believe that a god exists because I have no good evidence to support that belief.

Similarly, I don’t claim that there’s absolutely no unicorns anywhere in the universe (or beyond the universe). I have no evidence to support such a claim.

However, I don’t believe that unicorns exist because I have no good evidence to support that belief.

agangbern:

So the account must date from 1-33 CE, rather than 65-100 CE. But Mathew and John were among His contemporaries and they put into document what they personally knew about Him.

It’s important to have accounts that are contemporary – these help confirm that the person in question existed.

Not that such sources are always perfect. There are Roman histories that talk about generals in ways that ascribe supernatural powers to them and other things that we don’t believe are true.

Incidentally, there’s nothing that demonstrates the apostles themselves wrote the gospels. It’s most likely that anonymous members of the early Christian community wrote them from oral tradition. John’s gospel was written much later than the others (maybe even after 100 CE) and was more concerned with theology than a historical account of Jesus’ life.

By the way, would you please explain to me what you understand by 1-33 CE?

Huh?

BlazingBolt:

Becoming an Atheist is an act of will, it’s a denial of a belief in God.

I don’t think that belief is an act of will.

Can you will yourself to believe in leprechauns? Can you really just decide to seriously believe that leprechauns are just as real as your computer? I don’t know about you, but I can’t do that.

Similarly, can you will yourself to believe that your computer is not real, that it’s not sitting right in front of you now? Can you choose to seriously accept that belief?

For me, my lack of belief in leprechauns is a natural consequence of there being no good evidence for leprechauns. My belief in my computer is a natural consequence of the overwhelming evidence (independently confirmable) for its existence.

Snerticus:

I’ll tell you what, if he had just mocked it, I’d say my faith would be shaken in him at that point, wouldn’ you? Remember, I didn’t say I had faith in evolution, I said I had faith in Darwin.

My point is that belief in evolution does not stand on faith in Darwin (which I think you pretty clearly implied in your other post). If we discredit Darwin tomorrow, it won’t change the evidence we’ve gathered since he lived, evidence that points to a clear conclusion.

Wait, faith and act of faith are two different things. I know you have faith in things, I can see it in your writing. But I know you don’t have an act of faith.

Having faith in things in the sense of “confidence,” based on evidence, is not the same as having faith in things in the sense of “choosing to believe,” without evidence.

We should probably use “confidence” and “faith” to distinguish them.

I have confidence in the scientific method – because I have really good evidence for that confidence. I have no faith in spirits – because there is no really good evidence for that faith.

 

[AveSantaMaria]

God Does Heal Amputees!

We know only that he has been a fantastic intercessor – stories of his miracles, both during and subsequent to his death, are absolutely legion – and after his canonization, that intercession will grow. Of all Padre Pio’s healings, one of the most remarkable may have been a blind girl from the Palermo area named Gemma DiGiorgio. “I had no pupils in my eyes,” said Gemma in 1971, several years after Padre Pio’s death. “I had no sight at all. When I was three months old, my mother took me to a very famous eye doctor in Palermo. He told her that, without pupils, I would never be able to see.”

Some claimed that she may have had pupils, but that her birth defect was so severe they were not recognized as such. Whatever the case, in 1946, when the girl was seven, a nun took it upon herself to write Padre Pio on her behalf and received a note saying that the girl should be brought to Padre Pio in San Giovanni Rotundo. That’s exactly what Gemma’s grandmother did: brought the girl to see the famous monk, who heard the child’s first Confession and gave her first Communion – then made the sign of the Cross on her eyes.

After the blessing, Gemma was able to see. It’s a fact that is beyond question, confirmed by amazed doctors. Did she really lack pupils? Or was her entire eye one large pupil (making it seem that way)? We know only that there was a severe defect and that although the physical defect remained unchanged, afterward Gemma was able to see normally.

More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamie mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo Sanguinetti, a physician, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man’s side, "all three men noted that among Savino’s numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that “the socket was empty” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin in Padre Pio: The True Story.

Other doctors confirmed that they eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.

It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind.

For three days the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him – something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest.

A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino feld a slap on the right side of his face – the side where the eye was completely gone.

“I asked, 'Who touched me?” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”

When later the opthalmologist – an atheist – came to examine the remaining eye, there was shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. ‘I can see you!’ he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”

As indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw to his ‘utter astonishment’ that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”)

As Ruffin notes, it’s one thing when diseases disappear, this is exciting. It’s tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored; however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

spiritdaily.net/AmazingPio_cures.htm

St. Padre Pio, who said, “The Rosary is The WEAPON”, said as many as 90 rosaries a day in a special form for which he received ecclesiastical permission. Father Thomas Euteneur, President of Human Life International, cites this in The Rosary Batters the Gates of Hell hli.org/sl_2008-10-03.html
St. Padre Pio had Stigmata, the wounds of Christ on his hands, feet, and side did not sleep, almost did not eat, and was beaten daily by the devil. Perhaps God doesn’t heal more amputees in this world because of our lack of faith. We aren’t willing to give up our lives for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven to the extent that people such as St. Padre Pio did.
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/padre_pio.php

 

[AveSantaMaria]

Information on devoting oneself to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
Online Adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament louisville-catholic.net/WebCameras/AdorationChapel/tabid/825/Default.aspx
True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationmontfort.html
**Secret of the Rosary ** montfort.org.uk/Writings/Rosary.html
Reflections on True Devotion to Mary by His Holiness Pope John Paul II http://www.michaeljournal.org/montfort.htm
**The Glories of Mary, ** by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, explains Hail Holy Queen http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm
On the Dolors of Mary by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, explains the sufferings of Our Lady http://writer.zoho.com/public/immaculate/Seven-dolors
Marialis Cultus (Apostolic Exhortation for the Right Ordering and Development of Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of His Holiness, February 2, 1974 by His Holiness Pope Paul VI ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MARIAL.HTM
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus en.wikisource.org/wiki/Devotion_to_the_Sacred_Heart_of_Jesus#FIRST_POINT._.E2.80.94_The_ardent_desire_Jesus_Christ_feels_to_be_with_us.
Divine Mercy Chaplet ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/dmmap.htm
Rosary Confraternity Enrollment rosary-center.org/nconform.htm (As Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical on the Confraternity, *“Whenever a person fulfills his obligation of reciting the Rosary according to the rule of the Confraternity, he includes in his intentions all its members and they render him the same service many times over.” * Each member includes deceased fellow members as well; and thus he knows that in turn he will be included in the prayers of hundreds of thousands both now and hereafter.
Cathechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Litany of Humility ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/humility.htm
**Litany of the Blessed Virgin ** intermirifica.org/Mary/marylitany.htm
**Cathechis of the Popes on Mary, Mother of God, ** catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/Mary
Mystical City of God themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm
In Defense of The City of God Mystica Civitate Dei: dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun10tim.htm - to summarize the research of three priests on the official decision of the Holy Roman Catholic Church regarding The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda and to ascertain thereby whether it is permitted for anyone of any authority whatsoever to forbid the reading of this extraordinary book.
The Way of the Cross by St. Josemaria Escriva escrivaworks.org/book/the_way_of_the_cross-point-4.htm
**Rosarium Virginis Mariae ** by His Holiness Pope John Paul II: To the Bishops, Clergy, and Faithful on the Most Holy Rosary vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html
The Violence of Love by Archbishop Oscar Romero plough.com/ebooks/ViolenceOfLove.html

 

[emily789]

I don’t believe there is any physical proof of God’s existence that could convince an atheist that He exists. If there was, faith would be meaningless (Hebrews 11:1). The terms “reality” and “truth” are also meaningless- we humans only have 5 senses, and we are limited in our perception of what reality is by them. If we did not have eyes, would we be able to comprehend what “light” is, or prove that it exists? Of course not. I’m not using this argument to prove that God exist, I’m just saying there is no way we physically can (and nor can you prove He doesn’t). And therefore this topic is stupid. :yawn:

 

[greylorn]

… there is more evidence for evolution than almost any other scientific theory (including gravity).

While there is considerable evidence for the biological evolution process, evidence for Darwin’s explanation of the process is dubious.

Like most people, you neglect to make a distinction between a phenomenon (e.g. evolution) and a particular theory invented to explain it (e.g. Darwinism, Lamarkism, Creationism, etc.)

For example, you mistakenly refer to gravity as a theory. It is not. Gravity is an observable and measurable phenomenon. If you doubt this, jump off a tall building with a single bound. There have been various theories invented to explain the phenomenon, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity being the current favorite.

The theory should not, by intelligent individuals such as yourself, be confused with the phenomenon.

Mindless believers in Darwinism would be advised to read Darwin and figure out exactly where in “Origin of Species…” he actually explains the origin of species. They might also benefit from reading Michael Behe’s, “Darwin’s Black Box.”

Nobody who actually knows anything about the subject has (or needs to have) “faith” in Darwin. That notion is very silly. The evidence is clear as day: the fossil record alone would be sufficient, but we also have comparative biology and overwhelming DNA evidence (which, when we discovered it, happened to confirm everything that evolution predicted). On top of that, evolution makes predictions that have been confirmed and proven useful across a wide variety of other sciences.

To the best of my knowledge, Darwinian theory has yet to predict the evolution of a single critter. You’ll kindly pass along any contrary information, yes?

Fruit fly irradiation experiments have confounded Darwinists. We’ve produced mutated fruit flies and mated them with similarly mutated flies, only to find that after a few generations the mutations disappear. Explain that, Charlie D!

Darwinism is a theory about how evolution occurs, via random mutation and “natural selection” of the most effective mutations. Given scientifically determined mutation rates of about 1 in every 10 to the 40th power for an interesting mutation, the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth is shy of enough time for Darwinian processes to work. (The universe has only been around for less than 10 to the 18th power seconds.)

DNA evidence is certainly indicative of the process of evolution, but says nothing about the mechanism.

For example, suppose that God is not omnipotent, as I’ve proposed elsewhere. If He chose to create life, He would have to figure out how to do it, and would need to experiment. A non-omnipotent God would not want to be bothered assembling each and every critter one molecule at a time, or even one protein at a time.

An intelligent Creator would design his critters such that they can be easily modified by tweaking a few DNA nucleotides, especially since He’d know exactly which nucleotides to tweak.

If biological life was created in such a manner, with God manipulating DNA exactly like a computer programmer enhances his code sequences, the evidence of evolution would be exactly what we observe.

 

[MegaTherion]

While there is considerable evidence for the biological evolution process, evidence for Darwin’s explanation of the process is dubious.

Indeed evolution is both fact and theory, like gravity.

You’re right that Darwin’s explanation of the process is dubious – modern evolutionary theory has far surpassed Darwin’s ideas (and that is one of the reasons we don’t need to have faith in Darwin – we have more evidence and a better, stronger theory of evolution today).

Modern evolutionary theory (different from Darwin’s concept) is quite strongly supported by evidence.

Indeed, evolutionary theory makes many predictions confirmed across many different kinds of science. However, discussing the overwhelming evidence for evolution is an entirely different (and much more complicated topic) that is best done in places other than this thread.

If biological life was created in such a manner, with God manipulating DNA exactly like a computer programmer enhances his code sequences, the evidence of evolution would be exactly what we observe.

Sure. And if biological life was created by pixies in such a manner, with pixies manipulating DNA, etc. – the evidence of evolution would be exactly what we observe.

And if biological life was created by aliens in such a manner, with aliens manipulating DNA from afar, undetected, etc. – the evidence of evolution would be exactly what we observe.

I don’t believe any of those options, though, because nothing indicates that any of them are true. Do you have any evidence?

 

[greylorn]

Indeed evolution is both fact and theory, like gravity.

Would it help if I said that you have so completely missed the point?

Let me reduce my respect for your intelligence a few ticks and re-explain.

Kindly do not insert your opinions into a post pretending that they are mine, or in agreement with mine. You are poorly equipped to do that.

Evolution is not both fact and theory. As I already explained, evolution is a process. There are theories which explain the process. The most popular is Darwinism, and of course, the neo-Darwinian kludges introduced to buttress the original ideas.

Theories and facts are not equivalent. Until you become capable of recognizing that, conversations with you will be a waste of time, except those who desire more futility in their lives.

 

[1holycatholic]

Indeed evolution is both fact and theory, like gravity.

:ehh: There is a “law of gravity” but no “law of evolution.” Your scientism is tiresome.

 

[agangbern]

Quote:
By the way, would you please explain to me what you understand by 1-33 CE?

Huh?

Yes! I am serious in my curiosity about your personal understanding of “1-33 CE”. You used it here and I don’t want to be guessing of what you personally mean by that.