Skip to main content

Atheism: Does God Exist?


There are really only two possibilities, either God exists or he doesn't...Quite simple really. Personally, I think that all great truths are really very simple but that's another story. Either God exists or he doesn't, both conclusions require faith. The question is which one requires reasonable faith and which one requires blind faith?

I will give you the answer, the answer is that yes God exists. The reason I can give you the answer is because I exist. I exist along with the whole of creation and that fact alone gives us enough evidence to say with certainty that God exists.

Does something come from nothing?

The only alternative to God existing, is that something was created out of nothing. Atheism is the belief that there is no God and that belief requires the additional belief that something, i.e. everything we see, came from nothing. That something could be the rudimentary elements that made up the Big Bang or it could be the entire universe lock, stock and barrel, take your pick, it really doesn't matter. The fact is if you don't believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, if you are an atheist, then you are forced to conclude that something just popped into being out of nothing, an illogical, unreasonable conclusion.

What does the evidence reveal?

Let's look at the evidence. If there were a Creator one would assume and look for, order. If there was something that came out of nothing one would look for other instances of things just popping into being. Hmmm, what is it that we observe? We observe that there is order in the universe. If we didn't have order in the universe we would not be able to count on the seasons occurring every couple of months, the sun setting each night or even be able to perform an operation (counting on the knowledge of medical science to be consistent) or land a rocket on the moon. We can do all these things and more because there is order in the universe. What we don't see are things popping into existence and chaos. For everything there is a cause and an effect and there is order. Even in catastrophes we find order. For example, when a tornado occurs it happens in the same general area; there is wind and we can even predict when they will occur with increasing accuracy. Tornado's don't have fire in them, they don't include meteors, they have certain characteristics that have been observed and repeated. The same goes for earthquakes. We know, through observation, that earthquakes occur on fault lines and scientists have even been able to predict how often and how large an earthquake might be. Even in catastrophes we find order.

Can We Prove the Existence of God?

Many atheists ask for proof of God's existence. However, it is impossible to prove that there is a God through the scientific method because the scientific method requires that something is verifiable, repeatable and observable. Just as it would be impossible to prove through the scientific method that Michelangelo existed. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist. Just because something cannot be proven through the scientific method doesn't mean that it isn't true or doesn't exist. However, one can observe the effects of Michelangelo's existence or life and come to a reasonable conclusion that he did exist. The same is true of God. Is there a universe? Is there order in the universe? Yes. The reasonable conclusion is that God exists.

Furthermore, I would add that we all know that this is true and we prove this every day in our daily lives. Most people own cars. If you were to ask me what make and model the car I own is you would be offended if I told you it just popped into existence in my driveway one day. That would be an absurd response. And yet when it comes to creation many readily accept that response adding in a few billion years in a feeble attempt at making that position acceptable intellectually. The same goes for creation.

So, then where did God come from?

Some will ask where did God come from then? God is a cause, not an effect. The Bible teaches us that He always was and always will be, that He is the eternal Creator, the Alpha and the Omega, the great "I AM". He is outside of creation and therefore the cause of creation. If He were an effect we would still need a cause...are you following me here?

The Blind Faith of...Atheism!

Obviously, it takes a lot more faith to believe that something came from nothing since we have no evidence of this ever happening. The definition of blind faith is belief without true understanding, perception or discrimination. Atheism, the belief that there is no God, fits that definition perfectly since there is no evidence for the universe just popping into being. The Bible says that it is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God, I, wholeheartedly, concur!

  • Obama is not the Antichrist
    Obama is NOT the Antichrist I can honestly say that I am not a fan of Obama, nor was I a fan of Bush (just to give equal time). However, I want to address the notion that some Christians are thinking...
  • The Bohemian Grove, Satanic Rituals and World Leaders
    I know if you have not heard of these things before that you will find this difficult to believe, but the facts are hard to deny. Our leaders have been attending a club called The Bohemian Grove every year...

Proof that God Exists


Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on July 04, 2013:

Thanks Raitu, I loved the story at the end of your hub.

Scroll to Continue

Raitu Disong on July 04, 2013:

Great hub!

I wrote "Does God exist?"

You did a great job. God bless

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on November 26, 2012:

You bring up a lot of superlative arguments but the main thing is that the universe is expanding therefore it had to have a beginning and we know that something cannot come from nothing. There had to be a cause outside of the universe because the universe cannot exist before it existed. Therefore God exists.

In order for your theory to be true you would have to have both a male and a female come into being through evolution at the same time which is statistically impossible.

Joseph Mitchell from Nashville TN 37206. on November 25, 2012:

This article offended me and I am upset. I like most of Brie's articles and most of her ideas and political values. I am not sure what to do with her or this article and I am still finishing up reading all the comments. Why do Christians insist on misrepresenting Atheism? Why do they never do their homework? And, I do not appreciate being called a fool, Christians throw that around liberally. "We exist, therefore God exists." I am not up on the terminology at present, but on some level, I am aware this to be a failure of logic. "We exist, therefore Bigfoot exists." Infinite Universe Theory was the antiquated scientific position. It goes back to Ancient Greece. It has been held by Atheists, Theists, and Deists alike. It is enjoyed in scientific and philosphical circles, even today, it is held by many. There are many more parts to it, but for now, parts of the universe were pre-existent, or maybe pre-eternal. Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates held some of this. I think maybe Epicurus, Democritus, Leucippus, Diogenes, and many others. The Universe could be pre-eternal. This had been the view. Notable astro-physicists such as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Herman Bondi, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant V. Narlikar, and many others, found on YouTube, and Hubpages, google and elsewhere. Even as most began shifting to the Big Bang theory, they did so as a subset to thier original views. Our universe could well be a bubble in an ocean of pre-eternal universes, it is a blossoming bubble, it could even collapse later on. The Big Bang is not an explosion eithor as is commonly thought. It is an expansion, or inflation. The Big Bang theory, now the popular one, was brought to the table by Christians. Christians teach Ex-Nihilo, "out of nothing." So, it is the Christians who hold to these views, not the Atheists. The Big Bang theory is the accepted theory now, but it is not without problems, which need addressing and not everyone is convinced. I can find part of it on line, it had to do with Red Shift and, I think, Quasars, the measurements do not come out right. "Random versus Order." It can be mechanistic, mechanical, or other terms. It matters not whethor you are Christian or Atheist. We do not know, it may be order or random. Mathematicians show these designs and equations to demonstrate a random universe. I do not follow their language, but they are convinced, on a random universe. The stars are just thrown out there at random. People make pretty pictures called the Zodiac. That was not designed. It was accidental. The human mind seeks to create order where there is none. This is true. It could be an order universe, and it looks that way sometimes. We just do not know, or we can theorize, and argue. "God exists outside of the causal loop." This is an argument which knowledgable Atheists should be aware. This is possible. This is not verifiable or falsifiable. And neithor is God. We experience the universe every day, we know it is there. Why not stop there with what we have? How do we take a jump from there to what we do not know? Brie, you and I share so many views. Why do you call me a fool, why not labor around mutual goals? I am ostracized by the Atheist majority because I do not follow the far left. I share most of your traditional family values and high moral standards. I gladly vote for Christians, and even Mormons. They are the ones with the morals, the Epicurun ideals, the Aristotlian ideals, unfortunately. Some of your statements, I assume you follow Calvin and Luther. Both of these men personally presided over the deaths of thousands in their inquisitions and witch trials. Both of them were mass murderors. Both of them were male chauvinist on wheels. They deprived women of medicine during child birth, intentionally. They worked women like slaves. So, who is being fool hardy? Why would anyone want to remotely be associated or identified with them? Even John Wesley, the guy I came up under, wished to bring the Witch Trials back. I had to get away from all of that. I am looking for a new leader, maybe Epicurus, idk

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 26, 2012:

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 26, 2012:

You are correct, if you don't find God, you are at fault. And, yes I found HIM and I know it, there is no possibility that I am incorrect in that.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 26, 2012:

Brie: Yes. You DID say that if you seek God, you will find Him. So does that mean if you don't find Him you weren't really seeking Him?

If you go looking for God, there are only two possibilities; you find Him or you don't. If you don't find Him, there are two further possibilities; He isn't there, or there was something wrong with your search. If you do find Him, there are two further possibilites; that you really found Him, or you have mistaken something else for Him.

You say that you have found God, so from your perspective, one who looks for God and doesn't find Him has only one possibility to deal with; that there was something wrong with the search. So I could search from now until I die without finding Him, and my failure is always going to be my fault.

However, if you are being strictly logical about it, you must conclude that the possibility exists, however remote you think it may be, that you have not found God, that you found something that seems to be what you expected to find and you call it God. If you can't admit to that possibility, then there is no basis for a rational discussion between you and I.

And if you DO admit to the possibility, then the only way to resolve the problem it creates is to find some other way of determining whether God exists besides your personal search for Him.

If you can't do that, then arguing from a point of certainty is useless. It comes down to this: You are either satisfied with the kind of person you are, or you're not. The question of God's existence doesn't matter. If it does, if you are a different person with the knowledge and acceptance of God's existence, then you are not honest with yourself, and you don't know who you truly are. Character is what you are when no one is watching, even God.

I am happy with the kind of person I am. You seem to think that I would think differently if I knew God was real. I don't.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

I never said that you should "believe" me, I said that God said if you seek Him you will find Him. I have been born again so I am no longer a "natural" man/woman.

I am NOT telling you just to "accept" God..I am telling you to search for HIM and you will find HIM. The Bible says to knock and keep knocking, to seek and keep seeking until you find HIM. I cannot make HIM real to you, you have to meet HIM yourself, then you will believe.

Do you understand?

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

If the "natural man" cannot discern the things of God, then how do you know you're not sharing a delusion rather than feeling God?

I find the whole "mysterious God" argument to be slightly paradoxical. I ask a question and the answer is "You cannot understand God" but then I am asked to believe another poor mortal telling me about God.

And if you're saying I can't understand until I accept God, then you're telling me I can't accept God until I accept God, which is circular logic.

Go ahead and tell me there is no rational reason to believe in God, and that I simply must accept him. I'll respect that. Saying "Well it's obvious if you are just open to it." That's insulting to me AND to you, even if you don't realize it.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

You don't understand because the natural man cannot discern the things of have to ask God for understanding.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie: If I am right, I know that my life has been a good one too. So we both consider our lives well spent, and by any objective human secular review, we would probably both be right. What does belief add to that?

I, like you think that my life is a good one. The difference is that I believe my life is good regardless of whether I believe in a God or not. You seem to think belief is necessary for a good life.

That makes me pity you. You worship a being who places the acknowledgement of his existence the as the highest ideal his followers can express. The vanity of that boggles the mind.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

If I am wrong, yes, part of my life will have been sacrificed but I would still say it has been a good life (btw, I KNOW that I am not wrong). If you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell. Yes, a lot of people will be there too but you will not see them. It is total darkness and total loneliness, no good thing will be there.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie: You think I am unaware of what believers call Hell? You think I don't know what people say will happen if I go there?

How many True Believers have chosen to rot in prisons because of their belief? History is full of people who undergo torture and death rather than a simple, insincere declaration that they do not believe in their God. The only thing that makes their sacrifice noble is that they believed they were right. The only thing that makes me different from them is the fact that you think I'm wrong. I have accepted what MAY happen to me. It is as certain in my mind that you are wasting at least a portion of your life because of your belief as it is in your mind that I am sacrificing my soul for mine, but if I happen to be wrong, then I still think I am going where I belong and it will be with more people who are like me. That is a GOOD THING. No excuses, no last minute conversions, no illusions.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

I suggest you YOutube Near Death experiences of Hell and see if you are ready for ALL possible outcomes.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie: "Trust in" = "Belief"?

You'll have to do better than that. I do not "Trust in" something I don't believe in. If your asking if I trust in God's judgement, then technically I do. If he doesn't exist, then belief doesn't matter. If he does, then I trust that my character and my actions speak for themselves. If he exists and condemns me for my lack of belief, then I do not want to be in his presence.

I trust in that. That is what I mean when I say I am at peace. I am ready for all possible outcomes, and I do not make excuses for myself or anything I do.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

The word "believe" in the Bible means to trust in, rely's not to acquiesce. It also doesn't matter if you are at peace with your decision, you wont be the moment you die.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie: If I have lied, stolen, lusted then I am a sinner. My belief in God is irrelevant. I know what kind of a person I am, and I have no allusions beyond that. I don't need God's approval in the matter. I am a flawed human being. I have regrets, and I have mistakes in my past. If I can be redeemed simply by believing in God, then I haven't attained anything of value. If I am rejected simply because of my unbelief, then I haven't lost anything of value. If I am to be refused Heaven on that basis, then Heaven is no place I want to be.

I am at peace with that.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, no one is righteous no not one. That is what the Bible says. Jesus said he did not come to condemn the world but to save it because the world is condemned already. God's requirement is perfection, can you be perfect? NO. The Bible says what is required, Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul and no one has ever done that, so no one is good enough. God does not grade on a curve. God will not force you to take his gift, you have the option of living in eternity without him. Without God is no good thing and that is why its called hell.

God is not mocked if someone says they believe but they don't really, He knows. The unbeliever still has his debt/sin and if he doesn't accept God's gift, repent and turn to God he will have to pay for it amount of "good works" will pay that debt.

Yes, it matters to God what kind of person you are but you are deceiving yourself if you think that you are a good person. Have you ever lied? Then, you are a liar. Have you ever stolen anything? Then, you are a thief. Have you ever lusted after someone? Then you have committed adultery. If you reject the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God, God will reject the Bible and you will see.

Read this:

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie: So I can be the most wonderful person in the world, but if I don't believe in God, I am to be punished for that? Jesus did it by suffering a cruel death for me? That's nice, but why do I owe Jesus/God anything for something I didn't say I wanted in the first place?

You still haven't answered the question: Which does God prefer: the unbeliever who spends his life helping people and trying to make the world a better place or the believer who just lives his life.

Why does my belief matter to God? Isn't what I do more important? The kind of person I am? How I treat my fellow man? How I treat the universe? What does my belief or unbelief add to that?

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

Yes, they are lying to themselves. The Bible says "Let God be true and every man a liar".

The "ticket" to heaven is perfect sinlessness. You cannot attain it. Jesus attained it for you by suffering a cruel death FOR YOU, if you snub God's provision, there is no other provision for your sins.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

Brie Hoffman: Then how does Pascals Wager work? What he is saying is that the "safe" path is to believe in God. But then what does that say about belief? We don't CHOOSE what to believe in. I don't say "I'm not going to believe in God." I say "I do not see a reason to believe in God, so I don't." You say that if I truly desire to find God, then I will. So what about all those who seek God all their lives, yet don't find Him? Are they flawed? Are they going to be judged harshly for their honest, heartfelt search for God even though they never found Him, or do you tell them they never REALLY searched for God because otherwise they would have found him? Were they somehow lying to themselves? And are they going to now suffer in the afterlife because of a mistake?

Can you honestly tell me that God is looking for believers and that their character doesn't matter? A believer who sits at home praying is more "worthy" of reward than a non-believer who spends his life helping others?

If that's true, you can keep Heaven and God. I don't think I'd like it there anyway.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on April 25, 2012:

You misunderstand God "swordsbane". First of all, he knows a lie so you can't "fool" God, secondly, the Bible says seek ME and you will find ME. So if someone truly desires to find God they will and therefore believe without lying. But for those who choose to delude themselves into thinking that they can achieve salvation on their own...well then, it will not work because God's standard is perfection and only one person fulfilled that; his name was Jesus.

BTW, I don't consider taking a chance on eternity brave, I consider it foolish.

William Grant from Wisconsin on April 25, 2012:

MrCharisma83 and Brie Hoffman:

Ah yes... Pascal's Wager. It sounds good, but it is a lie. It means you lie in order to get into Heaven. It means that I discard everything I've learned in life that is telling me one thing and say "I believe" when I might not truly believe it in order to avoid punishment.

Which kind of person do you think God wants in heaven; one that was afraid to die and be judged for the kind of person they were and ended up believing out of fear, or the one who will honestly live their life in a manner they think is good and just and right, regardless of what someone they have never met might think of it?

Which kind of person do you think has more integrity? Which kind of person do you think is truly brave? I certainly know which I would rather be.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on August 31, 2011:

Good point MrCharism83!

MrCharisma83 from Alabama on August 31, 2011:

I just have something very simple to say. To those who say that God doesn't exist one way to prove if you are right is to die. Hear me in context now, I'm not saying kill yourself I am just saying at the point of death you will then find out if God really existed or not. However, I don't think that it's very wise to bank your life on that, considering the next life will be lived for eternity. And there will be no more grace once you stand in front of God. You have to make a decision now. Looking at that, the atheist stands more to lose.

To the Christian (which I am), if he or she is wrong, all they've done is followed God's commandments to the best of their abilities (weren't perfect) and vanished into nothing-ness after the point of death...

The Christian has lost nothing.

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on May 01, 2011:

Brie, I understand and can appreciate causing quite a stir. I've done some of my own. I learn a great deal from each storm.

But perhaps the greatest lesson for me is in finding ways not to let ego get the upper hand. Don't feel sorry dismissively for those who stir the pot of discontent; that only feeds ego and we all lose when that happens.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on January 12, 2011:

Thanks lone77star, it's nice to hear from a you can see from the comments this article caused quite a stir!

Rod Martin Jr from Cebu, Philippines on January 12, 2011:

@Brie, delightfully logical. Wonderfully written.

The idea that Michelangelo did not exist because one has no proof is called "an argument to ignorance" (a logical fallacy).

By my own definition of "faith" (the kind used by Moses to part the sea and by Peter to walk on water), the term "blind faith" is an oxymoron. This kind of faith transcends the possibility of any blindness, at least in the areas of that faith. I've had some interesting experiences (experiments) with this kind of "faith." In a sense, you could say that I have proved my own spiritual nature. By extension, it is easy to extrapolate the existence of God from that proof. This does not constitute proof of God, directly, but it comes close.

And yet proof is entirely unnecessary.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on October 05, 2010:

God always was and always will be. He is the first cause. If your spirituality lies in faith in the human experience I feel sorry for you.

mycanadianson from British Columbia on October 05, 2010:

There's no logic to your argument. You say the big bang didn't happen because things don't just pop into being. Well then where did your creator come from? There's no evidence for a creator popping into being, either.

The point is, saying there is no god is just as ridiculous as saying there is a god.

Personally, my spirituality lies in my faith in the human experience, and nothing more.

thephilosopher899 on August 15, 2010:

The quotes from the dying atheists, I think, came from fear of death and the human condition of vulnerability. I don't think it disproves atheism, but rather shows the speaker's lack of courage when facing the unknown. It's a comforting thought, however untrue it may be, that a god will take care of you after you die.

thephilosopher899 on August 15, 2010:

I don't know where I stand in all this, and maybe there is a god. But Whether he created the earth and whether he is as loving and all powerful as people think he is are two different ideas. If there was a god and he created everything, I can see that being true. Whether he is benevolent and omnipotent... I'm not sure.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on July 13, 2010:

I didn't take it personally, I was joking.

I'm glad you commented.

EnglishM on July 13, 2010:

I wasn't being personal, Brie. This is a lovely hub. Divine Inspiration is one of mine:)

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on July 13, 2010:

Awww beat you to it! :)

EnglishM on July 13, 2010:

I nearly wrote exactly the same thing. Thank you, Brie.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on July 12, 2010:

As are we all!

EnglishM on July 12, 2010:

Interesting hub, Brie. I think you are in need of some Divine Inspiration.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on July 11, 2010:

We matter to God and therefore we are very important.

Nikko on July 02, 2010:

And yes,the catholic church is the biggest,phony church of them all.Its so appearent.

Nikko on July 02, 2010:

PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given."

Did this contradict his scientific views? The professor's thought-provoking answer was, "If you discovered how one wheel in the 'clock' turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring."

Contrary to the opinion of some, many respected men of science do not rule out the idea of there being a God—a Great Mastermind behind the creation of the universe and man.

Consider two more examples on this point. When mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies."

Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: "God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence." He then noted that in the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life's origin. Supporting this view, astronomer Fred Hoyle has stated that believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing that a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of Boeing 747 airplane parts dismembered and in disarray could produce a 747.

To these answers can be added the words of the Bible writer Paul: "[God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."—Romans 1:20.

"If you discovered how one wheel in the 'clock' turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you . . . better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring"

Yes, God really does exist! But what is his reason for allowing the world's present sorry state? What is his purpose for the earth? Can we know exactly who the true God is? yes we can

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 30, 2010:

The CATHOLIC church is NOT Christianity. And, you are wrong about the Bibles too. I have other hubs/articles on that very topic if you care to look.

Jay Howard on June 30, 2010:

There are about 1500 Bibles that exist from before the printing press was invented.

Not one of them is identical to another. Passages have been added and removed, entire stories made up out of whole cloth. The story of "throwing the first stone" with Jesus and the Adulterer appears nowhere before around 1300. It was penciled in by a monk.

Some Bibles were modified for political use. Some for regional use.

In 976 the Pope outlawed the use of forks. In the 1300s cats were outlawed by the church. In the 1500s people were burned at the stake by the church for believing the earth was round. In 1849 when ether was first used as a pain killer the church banned it because pain was part of God's Plan. In the 1870s the church sold drugs that induced they are against abortion. Every single time the church comes up against science it loses the battle, but only after people have died and suffered. Now the church has it's back to the wall and what's the argument? That's the universe is too complex for man to understand therefore God made it? If someone from 1776 saw a space shuttle, would he believe God made it? Asimov said, "Technology, if it is sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." I believe you could change the word "magic" with "religion".

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 23, 2010:

Randy, you are not alone, glad I could be of some help.

Randy on June 23, 2010:

I'm unemployed now three months and I discovered your pages. I had lost myself because of my previous employer. The local government. What ever the hardship, glad to be outta there.

I like the tough topics and you address them.

And then,(honestly)

I read them and it is as if I could have wrote them myself. I could respond to many of them, but agree is all I would write.

So I find your pages to be quite supportive in a time where I have to recover myself from the political machine. Thank You.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 23, 2010:

Sure...I wrote hubs about this...this is God's creation and we are supposed to be taking care of it. Are you fan?

Randy on June 23, 2010:

I agree. But for the time being we are here, oil and all.

Curious. If heaven is home, is the earth home away from home? I think we are charged with the care of it for our time here. (sorry I know it's off topic)

Really like your hubs. (sincerely) Keep it up.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 23, 2010:

Actually earth is not my home, heaven is, but otherwise well stated.

Randy on June 23, 2010:

Need to echo an earlier post.

"If you consider the impossibility of life to exist without the perfection of factors that cause this to be a habitable environment and the odds of this preciseness happening randomly (i.e. our distance from the sun, the angle of our Earth's revolution on it's axis, the oval orbit, the make up of our atmosphere, etc. etc.) the odds of occurrence without intelligent design are infinitely against it."

I would add: "Earth. Still Our Only Home."

God Bless Ya Brie.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 15, 2010:

You can "believe" all you want, creation is a fact and quite obvious. You are right about one thing, it is my hub and I will do as I please. If you want to publish your "beliefs" then do so, you wont find me on them arguing with you.

Winston on June 15, 2010:

"whatever Winston...creation is factual"

Ms. Hoffman, what is it that causes you to have so much difficulty saying "I believe or I have faith"?

You can believe creation is factual - I don't have a big problem with that idea. But fact it is not. It is only your opinion, belief, or faith.

I only ask for intellectual honesty in a person. After that, I don't care what they believe or don't believe.

It is your hub, and I would never have intruded on your hub had you not attempted to discredit and bar input from people who disagree with your beliefs.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 15, 2010:

Thanks maewallace22, I hope you voted in the poll and rated the hub.

maewallace22 on June 15, 2010:

To believe in one you must believe in the other, if there is a good and there is an evil, then there is good and evil. Good Hub. Keep writting

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 14, 2010:

whatever Winston...creation is can believe in fairy tales if you want but it will be proven to you one day and on that day you will confess Jesus.

Winston on June 14, 2010:

"It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator's a bigger leap of faith to say that is not so."

I would agree with you if creation were factual, but creation is opinion. I certainly understand how from your viewpoint everything you say seems reasonable, as you assume a creator, but your actual logic fails because you base your conclusions on assertions and appeals to authority.

Chasuk on June 14, 2010:

The universe may have existed forever, but my span is shorter than that. I necessarily measure eternity in relation to the events of my lifetime.

When I was a Christian, I believed that God was eternal, yet I also believed that he came to us as Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, without paradox.

PhoenixV from USA on June 14, 2010:

If the universe has "always been here" or has been the product of infinite previous universes, we would have to imagine how long "always " took to get here. An infinite regression paradox. If something literally takes forever to get here, we wait forever for it to arrive. For me the logical conclusion is that it had a definite beginning. Some "infinite" cause , allowed for a "finite effect"

Infinite doesnt exist like we know of, as things that exist.

Its a logical conclusion that the last integer of pi is in fact an integer, yet also as logical to conclude that "it cant be " any of those integers specifically.

Is a hypothetical infinite intelligent?

Knowledge is finite . Truth is infinite . Truth is the test of knowledge's accuracy on an infinite scale

Chasuk on June 14, 2010:

That's one explanation. Everything that exists is either expanding, shrinking, or remains in a steady state.

The universe could be a living, growing thing. It could be the millionth (10 billionth?) iteration of an infinite succession of expanding and collapsing universes.

As you said, either conclusion requires faith.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 14, 2010:

The Universe is expanding which indicated a beginning.

Paula from The Midwest, USA on June 14, 2010:

We need to look at the reasons that people think the universe has always existed, over why many others think that it did in fact come into being at one point. I don't think it is just about belief, that the universe came into being. Its logical and scientific, so there are good reasons to wonder about the cause of that event. At the very least, the cause has to be as great, but likely even greater than the effect we see. Such intricate information is now here, and we with our own intelligence cannot even begin to duplicate it. (though they try and try to) The more we find out in science, the more we find that its even more information than previously thought. We don't observe this occurring with the greatest of human intelligence today. Yet some want to believe so hard, that it makes sense that it could happen when there was "nothing" and no intelligence.

Chasuk on June 13, 2010:

@Brie: You write, "It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator exists."

I agree, sort of. Yes, if a "creation" exists, then a creator necessarily exists.

But doesn't that assume that the universe exists as an artifact, i.e, as the product of creation?

What of those people who believe that the universe has always existed? That isn't as unreasonable a belief as it sounds. After all, you apparently believe that God has always existed. If God can have existed forever, why not the universe? Either belief is a leap of faith.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 13, 2010:

Thanks PhoenixV, I hope you rated it and participated in the poll.

PhoenixV from USA on June 13, 2010:

Thanks and once again excellent hub

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 13, 2010:

Thanks oceansnsunsets...go ahead PhoenixV

Paula from The Midwest, USA on June 13, 2010:

Great Hub Brie, thanks for sharing

PhoenixV from USA on June 13, 2010:

Good evening Ms Hoffman I hope that you dont mind that I comment here ?

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 13, 2010:

It's no leap of faith to surmise that because creation exists a creator's a bigger leap of faith to say that is not so.

PhoenixV from USA on June 13, 2010:

God, as a cosmological model is a reasonable,logical,rational conclusion. No need for faith.

And your response is petty and lacks any argument

Scott on June 13, 2010:

So your only argument left is that you can't explain how things came to be, so you take a leap of faith to a God. You are a sad and unimaginative person.

PhoenixV from USA on June 13, 2010:

I believe that the Creator of Reality is "existing".

Things exist, mostly as energy that comes and goes.

My energy probably wans't around billions of years ago will max entropy billions of years in the future.

I cant prove that my awareness is nothing more than feedback of an electrochemical deterministic machine creating an illusion of "self existence" even if I didn't come n go every billions of years or so.

God does more than exist. Exist is for amateurs with a heckuva lotta faith.

Excellent hub!

Terree on June 13, 2010:

All boils down to Free Will, those that believe truly understand this, as God spirit to yours..he request that you "Seek knowledge", honor thy neighbor.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 13, 2010:

It is simple, it's all around you in creation.

Scott on June 12, 2010:

Evidence for God would be simple, something that wasn't written by a man. Something physical. Gravity cannot be explained fully, but it can be observed. You cannot argue religion based on scientific ignorance.

Winston on June 12, 2010:

"people like you who choose to wrestle against God"

As God is only a human concept, it is impossible to have a real wrestling match, although I suppose we could have a proxy match by wrestling with ideas.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 12, 2010:

The latter chapter is a detail of the former. It's just that simple, however people like you who choose to wrestle against God will wrestle to their own destruction.

Winston on June 12, 2010:

The word of god according to the tribe of 2-by-2ers:

Genesis 6:22 "Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did."

The word of god according to the 7-by-2ers:

Genesis 7:5 "And Noah did according to all that the LORD commanded him."

Only a total imbecile would not notice that these two narrative accounts of the flood and Noah's actions end the same way with Noah doing everything he was told to do.

In Chapter 6, he was told to gather 2 of every creature; and then we are told Noah did this. When the same story is repeated in Chapter 7, Noah is told to bring 7 clean and 2 unclean. If he had already gathered 2 of every creature, it was not it necessary to repeat the gather 2 order in Chapter 7. Yet, there it is.

Two burning questions:

1) Which chapter of the two non-fallable words of god is the accurate chapter?

2) Did god make a mistake in Chapter 6 when he said bring only 2 of every creature, or did the narrative writer make a mistake?

Which of these two conflicting absolute truths is the real deal absolute truth, two or seven? Inquiring minds want to know.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 12, 2010:

You should pick the one that is true and conforms to reality. God said if you seek me with all your heart I will allow you to find me. If you are just playing games with your soul then you are playing games with your life.

fatfist on June 12, 2010:


(as Carl Sagan supposedly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Until and unless someone or something provides me with that evidence...)

It was quite interesting to read the positions that you have been considering.

But if you are looking for "evidence", there is TONS of it. Every religion has evidence, eyewitness reports, proofs, historical data, knowledge, authorities, etc.

Now the problem with "evidence", and especially with Carl Sagan's irrational statement, is that evidence is subjective. Evidence necessarily depends upon the extremely limited capacity of the human sensory system. After all, it is humans who DECIDE what is "evident" enough to be labeled as "evidence".

Surely, by evidence alone, or going by Carl Sagan's nonsense...gravity cannot possibly exist. I mean, we cannot sense gravity in any way. And we definitely have no physical evidence for gravity. Hence we come to the irrational conclusion that there is no physical gravity.

Sure, we can see a ball fall to the floor, and only because we have "memory". We were able to remember the previous "locations" of the ball. This has nothing to do with "evidence" or "proof". What about the blind person who cannot see the ball? Or what about the 3 month unborn baby? Does gravity not exist for them because they cannot "see" a ball in motion?

You see, gravity is something that we infer at the conceptual level. We infer that there must be a physical mediator that pulls the ball to the floor. And this has nothing to do with evidence or proof. Instead, this has everything to do with a "rational explanation". We can come up with a rational explanation as to nature's physical mechanism that pulls the ball to the floor.

So really, if you are looking for evidence, there is tons of it. But this is not what is bothering you. You are bothered because this is not the evidence that suits YOUR particular tastes. But it does suit the tastes of billions of other people, as you very well know. They are quite content with this evidence as proof!

But if I were you, I would instead start looking for rational explanations. Can the "creation" of the universe be rationally explained? What does the word "creation" even mean? This would be a good starting point to help you decide if any religion can deliver what they promise. I would leave evidence for religions to quibble over. Atheists and theists have been arguing over God for 2000 years. They ask for more evidence and proof either "for" or "against" Gods existence. And they will continue to argue until the human species goes extinct. And what will they have learned in the process? Absolutely nothing!

Scott on June 12, 2010:



Can I judge by their holy books? I've read most all of the holy books of the major religions. They all seem to have internal problems for which their adherents have to do tortured and convoluted back-flips to explain. Another problem is that if I pick any one of them, I will find their adherents interpreting the same holy book differently, which leads to different sects within each of the various beliefs.

That compounds my dilemma. Even if I pick one religion out of so many, I'll then need to pick among the different sects. To use just one example, there might be just enough difference between the Baptists' and the Catholics' requirements for salvation that it would significantly affect my fate. And then there are all the different Baptists, and the different individual interpretations even within the same congregation... But I'll not worry about that right now.

Some people claim to have had personal revelations from their god, but you can find people claiming personal revelations in every religion that has adherents. I've had my own epiphany moments, but I've never had some supernatural being bestowing revelations upon me even when I was open to receiving them. The only person I found I was talking to when I prayed as a kid was myself. Even if I did have some god come down and talk to me, how could I distinguish it from some mental delusion (or some powerful posing demon, leading me astray)?

So how do I pick? If I want to bet that one of these is correct, if I want to bet that there is some absurd or supernatural explanation (rather than a natural one that we don't yet understand), how do I decide?

See, it isn't a 50/50 chance here. It isn't like I can just bet there is a God rather than bet there isn't in order to cover my ass (Pascal's Wager); I've got to decide which supernatural explanation of the various religions is the correct one, and I've got to consider the possibility that there is a correct supernatural explanation that no one has conceived of yet--or that there could be some correct supernatural explanations that might never be conceived.

I know there will be some believers that read this and think they have some convincing reason for their belief that I didn't cover. I've been studying this most of my life and I haven't seen or heard a convincing one yet. There is nothing they can say about which I haven't heard something similar regarding another religion. If there is something they think is unique about their religion, then believers of other religions have some other unique thing they can say about their religion as well.

"True" believers of any of these religions should try to talk to the "true" believers of some of the other religions. If they spend some time listening to the other believer's argument, I'm sure they will find things that will seem absurd to them, things that don't make sense, and things that appear outrageous. That is how they all sound to me. If they can understand why it is they don't buy what a "true" believer of another religion is saying, they will begin to understand why I'm not buying what they are saying.

I'm sitting here in a kind of default position, not actively believing in any of these religions--just like a newborn baby. I've been told I should take a "leap of faith" in one direction or another into belief, but how do I decide which way to leap? It seems to me that leaping in the wrong direction might be worse than not leaping at all.

I don't actively have to do anything not to believe something, I don't have to believe one thing to not to have a belief in something else, and I don't even have to know with absolute metaphysical certainty if something is true (or not true) not to believe it.

What would cause me to take such a leap into belief?

I would have to be provided some compelling reason, and, as Carl Sagan supposedly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Until and unless someone or something provides me with that evidence, I see no reason to move from my default position.

I don't have to prove that all these beliefs (and the gods that go with them) aren't true. If people ask me why I don't believe in God, I have a right to ask them which one they are talking about. Since some people have a different idea about what they mean by "God" (eg: Nature, a "force" as opposed to a being, "All That Is," etc.), I think I have a right to ask them to define what they mean so I will know what they are asking me. If they don't want to define what they mean, then how can I know what they are talking about? I don't possess any mind-reading abilities.

If they can describe what they mean, then I might be able to answer them. If they can't, then the best answer I can give is that I've not seen any compelling reason or evidence that would motivate me to take that "leap of faith" into belief in any one of these many supernatural options.

On the most basic level, theism is "a belief in a god or gods;" a-theism is "without a belief in a god or gods."

I guess that makes me an atheist.

Scott on June 11, 2010:

Alright, here is a long relevant post.

...there was void, or chaos, or nothing, or everything and nothing, or darkness, or a sky world, or heaven, or heaven and earth together, or heaven and water together, or six heavens and six hells, or a supreme formless Entity, or several Entities, or some combination thereof with various modifications.

In this primordial Initial State, either Allah, Jehovah, Purusha, Brahma, Manitou, Chaos, a Spirit, the "King Above the Sky," the "Holy Supreme Wind," the Dreamtime gods, a supreme formless Entity and the Archetypal Man, the Goddess, a small bearded man or some other divine, or supernatural, or superhuman, or extra-human being (or beings) or elemental essence or concept that I might have overlooked...

...either dreamed, spoke, caused, made, planted seeds, gave birth, brought forth, formed, sacrificed itself, was sacrificed by others, or some other such action or series of events that eventually resulted in the creation of the universe as we know it.


Later, in some cases, either Athena, Chimalman, Hera, Hertha, Isis, Juno, Mary, Ostara, Shin-Moo, Sochiquetzal, or some other virgin mother whose name is lost to us (or whom I may have overlooked), may, or may not have, given birth to other gods or god-men like....

...Krishna, Serapis, Mars/Ares, Buddha, Dionysus/Bacchus, Jesus, Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules"), Bali, Hesus, Odin, Prometheus, or dozens or more others I missed, many of whom were either crucified or executed in sacrifice for mankind.

From there it gets more complicated. In fact, if I were to continue, it may become entirely incomprehensible.

What I attempted to do is combine stories from many of the various beliefs of the past and present. The point is to show how many there are (and these aren't all of them by a long shot).

They can't all be true, so how do I determine which one to believe in? I've been told my "eternal soul" might be at stake and I don't want to bet on the wrong horse, after all. Should I pick whichever one is the oldest? I don't know which one that might be because many were passed down orally for many years before they were written down. The oldest ones might have been lost by now anyway. Should I pick whichever one has the largest number of adherents? I'm not sure that would be right. There have been times in the past when more people believed something different from what they believe today. Christianity has the largest number of adherents now, but that wasn't always the case. Did the truth change at the moment the believers in Christianity exceeded the believers in whatever religion was more popular before it? At some point in the future, if Islam overtakes Christianity in the number of adherents (considering it's growing faster), would that make a difference in whether or not it's true? Also, since the majority of the world's population doesn't believe in Christianity, would that outweigh the fact that it had the largest number of adherents? And what if people stopped believing in it entirely?

Okay, I just sent my Southern Baptist brother an email. I asked him, hypothetically, if in 5,000 years (more or less) no one believed in Christianity anymore, would that mean it was wrong?

He said no.

Although this in no way constitutes a scientific survey by any stretch of the imagination, I suspect this would be the opinion of most believers. But, obviously, there have been many things in the past most people believed that turned out to be wrong, so I can't decide which religion is correct based on its number of adherents.

(I guess that rules out two of my other questions: can I dismiss all the religions no one believes in anymore simply because no one believes them? And, should I choose a religion by picking whichever one was oldest and still has adherents?)

Should I believe in whichever religion is the most recent? Since new religions keep popping up, I would expect to have to change my beliefs every so often. That doesn't seem to be very smart.

What if I picked based on what my parents' believed? Would that make sense? I guess that's no way to tell which one is true for sure. It appears that believing what your parents' believed has resulted in people coming to many different conclusions. I think Einstein was a pretty smart guy...should I choose based on what he believed? I know there have been other very intelligent people that had other beliefs, so I can't go by that. What if I picked based on what most people around me believed so that I won't be shunned or ridiculed? I don't think that would be very courageous or any more likely to result in me choosing correctly.

Should I pick based on which one I like best? Would that be the best way to decide which one is true? I know from experience that the truth about something is not always the most appealing thing I might want to believe. What if I pick one I really like and it turns out to be wrong? I might spend eternity in hell-fire or something.

Maybe I should believe the one that makes the most terrible threats against not believing in it? If I do that at least I'll know I won't suffer the worst fate among all the options... The problem with that is that there are several of them that seem equally bad. Also, what if a new one comes along that threatens nonbelievers with something worse?

What if I just come up with my own? Evidently some people have done it, why not me? But I suppose coming up with my own wouldn't necessarily make it true (no matter how fun it might be).

What if I put a list of all the gods I know down on paper, close my eyes, and ask for guidance before I put my finger down somewhere on the page without looking?

Hold on...

It looks like the old Korean god JoMulJu wins! Believers have always told me to ask for guidance and put my faith in something and I would get an answer. If that is true, JoMulJu is the One True God!

Hmmm...The problem with that is it seems when other people do it they get other responses. Maybe that isn't the best way to do it either.

Are there any of them that seem to have anything special about them, something to recommend them above the others? Hmmm...

Let's see... Several claim that their prophecies have been fulfilled, so I can't go by that. There are many that claim a Son of God figure, death and resurrection, healings, revelations, miracles and such things, so I can't go by that. We have already ruled out judging by whichever one is the oldest, has most adherents, is oldest that still has adherents, is most recent, is most threatening, is most appealing...

What else?

Can I judge based on the effects various religions have on adherents? Maybe that is the something special I could look for? Buddhism might be the least violent, but then there are the Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses. Christians might have the most material wealth overall, but that seems like it might be contrary to their own scriptures. Jews seem to have survived as a people for a long time despite facing some really harsh attacks over the years. Islam seems to be more dynamic lately. It seems there are unique things about each one, but how do I pick which unique thing is more important (or relevant)? And is being unique in some way any more likely to make something true?

Can I eliminate some religions based on how silly or absurd they seem? Some of them seem pretty strange: a god vomiting the sun, a god being impregnated by an obsidian knife, a god placing land on the back of a golden frog, a god making a woman out of a bear, a god making a man out of clay, a god making a woman out of a man's rib. You can find everything from winged horses and virgin births to "stopping" the sun and parting the seas. Actually, most of them are filled with hard-to-believe, miraculous or supernatural claims.

I guess if I had to pick one that seemed the least absurd, Buddhism might come out on top (or maybe some of the ones I didn't cover, like Jainism or the Baha'i Faith). But some may make the argument of fideism: credo quia absurdum, or I believe it because it is absurd. So I might not be able to rule out something just because it seems

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 11, 2010:

No, YOU do not want to see what is plainly there! One day you will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, I hope that it will be before you die. There is no reason why Ch. 7 can't be a clarification of 6 because they don't contradict but are a further detailed instructions. You just don't want to accept it.

Winston on June 11, 2010:

"Some were brought in by two's and some (different animals, clean vs unclean) were brought in by sevens!"

No matter how hard you try, you cannot make a one-event composite from two seperate narratives (Genesis 6 and Genesis 7) that each give seperate and conflicting accounts of the orders given to the mythical Noah.

In the first account, 2 of every creature were to be taken. In the second account, which is not a clarification of the first but a seperate account, 2 and 7 were to be taken.

You quote Genesis 7 but pretend Genesis 6 isn't there. Why is that? Because it doesn't match? Well, Duh!

The bible has many such contradictions, some explained and some not. Only unthinking, obedient servitude to authority and dogma keeps one blind to the reality of the bible - it is a compilation of oral legends.

fatfist on June 11, 2010:


(I'd like to learn more about this worldview. Would you kindly make a few reading recommendations?)

Oh that's easy....go do some reading on the following religious nonsense that is parroted by the establishment:

big bang, black holes, light wave, particle wave, gravity wave, wavicle, time, mass, energy, force, field, charge, electrons, protons, neutrons, warped space, spacetime, 0D particle, black hole, singularity, dark matter, dark energy, Quantum Mechanics, gravitons, wave function collapse, photons, phonons, tachyons, chronons, solitons, muons, pions, Higgs, neutrinos, 1D strings, etc.

And pay close attention to the following:

1. dilation (physical stretching) of the concept time, which is nothing

2. warpage (physical bending) of space, which is nothing

3. the concept black hole swallows matter from a neighboring star, and swallows clocks, astronauts and their iPods.

4. 0D quantum particle carries on its back the concept force

5. transfer of the concept energy

Mother Nature must be going nuts trying to understand all the idiotic concepts that the idiot ape brains of Math have invented. She must truly wonder whether her favorite creature is actually any more intelligent than a snail.

Anyway, I recently had a discussion on black holes with a PhD physicist who decided to delete my comments when I showed her that she had no clue about physics. You can read the exchange in my hub on black holes.

You are welcome to discuss any of these math-physics issues in my hub. Unlike people who have a worldview to protect, I never censor anyone.

Chasuk on June 11, 2010:

@Fatfist: Your most recent comment (the one containing the words "Religion known as Mathematical Physics") is fascinating.

I'd like to learn more about this worldview. Would you kindly make a few reading recommendations?

fatfist on June 10, 2010:


(Astronomers can calculate the rate of rotation for many galaxies from the light spectra....The rotation rates seem to be impossible!)

This issue stems from one of the tenets of the Religion known as Mathematical Physics, which has deemed light to be a ‘wavicle’ (wave + particle). This is an irrational hypothesis. They treat light as a ‘wave’ in order to use the Doppler Effect calculations, like they do with sound. Then at the Quantum level they treat it as a 0D point-particle. Both of these idiocies are irreconcilable with the nature of light.

There is no such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ wave, and there is no such ‘thing’ as a 0D particle in the universe. Hence the invention of the Dark Matter/Energy nonsense to patch up their irrational theory about the Redshift of galaxies. And this is why they misinterpreted data to irrationally conclude that the universe is expanding from a Big Bang self-creation.

The Big Bang, like all forms of ‘creation’, has to do with Religion, not with Science. The Big Bang was the idea of a Catholic priest, Lemaintre, who finally found a way to reconcile theological creation with authoritative names like, Hubble, Einstein, Godel, and others, who refused to accept the BB, but later gave in due to peer pressure. Big Bang, singularities, and black holes, violate Einstein’s Relativity.

(The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite....)

There are NO such discrete ‘particles’ called electrons, protons, or neutrons in the universe. Such idiocy stems from Bohr’s thoroughly debunked orbital model of the atom. And ‘charge’ is a concept. You will not find any little ‘balls’ in the universe that you can label with ‘+’ and ‘-‘.

(if the strong force were a little weaker...)

There is NO such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ or ‘the’ force. The word ‘force’ is a VERB – to force! You cannot put ‘a’ or ‘the’ before a verb and treat it like an object.

It is pure nonsense and totally unscientific. Only objects in MOTION and in physical CONTACT can mediate an event we call ‘force’.

Consequently, there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ strong or ‘a’ weak force. Such notions are total gibberish and anybody using such language has no clue what they are talking about, and they certainly are no scientist.

(the sun could not generate energy...)

Again, very unscientific! There is no such ‘thing’ as energy. Energy is a concept.

(had space been less than three dimensions....)

Space is ‘nothing’, it is not an object. Consequently, it is irrational to say that space ‘has’ dimensions. Dimensions have to do with architecture only.

Indeed, space has the opposite properties that objects have. Space 'is' perfectly transparent, intangible, frictionless, dimensionless, unmovable, colorless, temperature-less, etc. Space is neither small nor large nor wide nor tall. It cannot move nor be occupied (e.g., like a fish occupies an ocean: by displacing water molecules).

In physics, we use adjectives (such as continuous) to modify objects. We use the opposites of these adjectives to characterize space (e.g., discontinuous, transparent, intangible, dimensionless). Adjectives are solely circumscribed to objects and are not applicable to space. Certainly, space cannot be black, white, big, flat, expanding, warping, or three-dimensional.

It is impossible for anything in the universe to possess less than 3, or more than 3 dimensions. Anything < 3D or > 3D is purely conceptual – invented by a human mind.

So to use such irrational pseudo-scientific nonsense to claim that a ‘creator’ made it all happen, is not only laughable, but your are inventing another religion by marrying mathematical physics with traditional religion. It’s total garbage talk.

It is best to just stick with what the Bible says, and claim that you have faith in God. When you start to justify your faith with pseudo-science, you are inventing a totally NEW Religion, which often goes by the name: Apologetics.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 09, 2010:

You have the brain of a pea! Some were brought in by two's and some (different animals, clean vs unclean) were brought in by sevens!

You're prejudice is showing big time!

No Contradictions!

(Genesis 7:2) Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

(Genesis 7:3) Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Winston on June 09, 2010:

The point of the number of animals taken on board is to show that the bible is not a literal collection of absolute truths from God. The bible is a compilation of legends - the fact that the Noah story has two completely different orders from God shows that there were at least two different versions of the story (legends from seperate tribes) that were woven together to create the book of Genesis.

Genesis 6:20

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

You cannot have it both ways. In one account only two of every creature were taken on board, while in a totally seperate account 7 clean beasts were added to the story. To be consistent, there can only be one story - so which was it, 2 or 7?

For a believer, it shouldn't matter how many animals were ordered to be taken as the point of the bible is not to be the absolute word of God but to teach moral lessons handed down by ancient religious tribes. If you want to believe those stories were inspired by God that is your right. But it is just as likely they were simply spawned by the mind of ancient man attempting to explain mysteries of the physical world that were unfathomable to those ancient men and women.

Once you understand that the old testament of the bible is simply a collection of tribal legends, its impact as the literal word of God is reduced to ashes, and its ability to rule lives by its authority becomes as unconvinceing as a Mad Magazine or a Dell Comic Book.

And don't think that the New Testament is without contradiction - times and locations of miracles vary between different authors. For an absolute word of God, it would be more convincing if all the facts matched - but they don't.

It is still O.K. to believe. I am not trying to convince anyone to not believe - that is a personal choice. I am trying to show that it is not foolish to reject that belief, that, in fact, it is downright rational to do just that.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 09, 2010:

Two of some seven of others, who knows the total.

Winston on June 09, 2010:

Mr Miyagi understood religion: "No such thing as bad student. Only bad teacher. Teacher say. Student do."

Yes, the basis of all religion is.....authority.

For all of you who believe that the bible is the absolute word of god and infallible, let me ask you a real simple question: How many animals did Noah take onto the ark, two or seven?

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 09, 2010:

Amen peach7fuzz!

peach7fuzz on June 09, 2010:

That's good. There is certainly definite proof that God is real. Look around you. The greatest scientist that ever lived created what is around us! It's crazy awesome!

Nikko on June 09, 2010:

Hmmmmm,seems like i will have to jump back into this some more.Stay tuned

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 09, 2010:

Please don't put outside URLs on my hub.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 08, 2010:

Uno if it was good enough for God to call all "Atheists" fools, it's good enough for me! You can stop being one any time you like.

Winston on June 08, 2010:

Better yet, why don't you simply admit that your belief is simply opinion, based not on any logic but based entirely on authority. Then I recommend you stop bashing people who don't accept your belief system or your authority:

"Atheism, the belief that there is no God, fits that definition perfectly since there is no evidence for the universe just popping into being. The Bible says that it is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God, I concur."

Remove the log from your own eye first, neighbor, before you start calling others fools.

Winston on June 08, 2010:

Great! We will take your number 1 definition: "1. the state or fact of existing; being."

The normal theist pleas to authority - this time a dictionary which gives us the incredibly stupid circular definition of: existence, the state of existing.

Gee, thanks. Me, the state of being me. Well, Duh!

Then it says: being. What kind of being. Invisible? Short? Gay? Creator of all tutus?

I say by your definition that an invisible 12-inch tall gay midget wearing a pink tutu created the universe and all that is in it. He is a being so he exists. And because he exists he exhibits existence.

That is your argument. How does it sound now?

Now all you have to do is prove by your definition that an invisible 12-inch gay midget who likes pink and wears tutus does not exist.

The problem of your definition is that it allows any imaginary creature to be defined as "being". All we have to do is believe they it or he or she exists.

Now do you not see how ridiculous it is to use common language defintions? Perhaps you would care to try again using a valid definition that has precise parameters?

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 08, 2010:

Existence as defined on

ex·ist·ence? ?/?g?z?st?ns/ Show Spelled[ig-zis-tuhns] Show IPA


1. the state or fact of existing; being.

2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.

3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.

4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.

5. something that exists; entity; being.

The state of being...not your definition!

Winston on June 08, 2010:


You may want to reign in the praise for the logic - there isn't any real logic presented.

The author used The Law of Excluded Middle to present the idea that either God exists or God doesn't exist. That is O.K. as far as it adheres to an axiom of classical logic, but it falls short in that "exists" is not defined. What does exist mean?

I can tell you what it means - it means something holds a position and an area in the universe. In other words, it is a physical object that can be measured as to L,W,H. If you want to use a different definition, it is up to the author to define the word. We have no such definition presented. Not good. Common language does not translate into precise thinking arguments - we have to know what the arguer is trying to prove or disprove. Exists is such a word.

After that, we get to what was trying to be an argument that fell woefully short. Because I exist God exists, I see order, and nothing can come from nothing so therefore God must exist.

This is nothing but an assertion based on no evidence of creation - and with no definition applied to the word creation.

The Big Bang is not fact. Creation is not fact. Both are non-proven assumptions - acutally, the way they are used by the author makes them both appeals to common understanding, which is a fallacy of logic of itself.

This entire argument is as logical as if I proposed that an invisible twelve-inch gay midget in high heels and a pink tutu created the universe, and my own existence, the fact that I perceive order in that universe, and the idea that nothing can come from nothing all provide evidence that proves my case.

Welcome to the Church of the Invisisble 12-inch Gay Midget

(Donations accepted)

I will now let you in on the big secret - you cannot prove existence with logic. Existence requires no proof. It is factual - it either exists or it doesn't and no argument makes a difference. You cannot argue the sun out of the sky. It requires no argument for the moon to orbit the earth.

Classical Logic is the search for reasoned truth by way of precise thinking - it is "of the mind" - therefore, all of its proofs are "of the mind". Its proofs or truths are only logical necessities based upon the system of logic that is used. Logic deals with concepts - not atuality.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Brie Hoffman (author) from Manhattan on June 05, 2010:

Thanks so much, I hope you took the poll and rated it, as you can see I have a lot of detractors on this particular hub!

Jerad Maplethorpe from Minneapolis, Minn. on June 05, 2010:

AWESOME Post!! I love the logic.

Related Articles