so in other words our beliefs dont have an effect on the way we live? is that wat ur saying? ur saying as a christian that we all have the same beliefs but i believe the current pope is a representation of the first pope, which is peter, n he has a unique link to God. other denomations dont believe that and therefore have different beliefs. so how can denominations be a way of life when the difference is our beliefs on how things are and how they should be. Another way I could put it is why is there the existance of other denominations wat caused the division. wat is so different between a catholics way of life and a baptist's for instance?
I'm saying that all you need to do to be considered a "Christian" is believe in Christ/God. Everything else is fluff and fall into the relm of your subsect (denomination) of Christianity.
On a side note, did you know that South Americans don't consider Catholics as "Christians"? My wife tells me all the time "I'm not christian... I'm catholic." Apparently down there they label all other christians (protestants) as christians and catholics as catholics.
really well thats the first i heard about that subject in South America. interesting. did u also kno that all evangelization in the new world(america) was done by catholics aswell as all paintings, or atleast most. also the purtians believed in predestination, in other words some pple were predestined to go to heaven while others to hell so why try to convert the natives. I learned this from a historian, pretty interesting, i thought.
I think we can agree that Christianity goes a little bit beyond just believing in Christ/God but also having a deep relationship with him. Agree or no?
Thats very debateable. The majority of people in all religions practice/ believe sparingly. You get a few that are fanaticals, some that try to maintain faith, and many that are name only.
so in other words our beliefs dont have an effect on the way we live? is that wat ur saying? ur saying as a christian that we all have the same beliefs but i believe the current pope is a representation of the first pope, which is peter, n he has a unique link to God. other denomations dont believe that and therefore have different beliefs. so how can denominations be a way of life when the difference is our beliefs on how things are and how they should be. Another way I could put it is why is there the existance of other denominations wat caused the division. wat is so different between a catholics way of life and a baptist's for instance?
I'm saying that all you need to do to be considered a "Christian" is believe in Christ/God. Everything else is fluff and fall into the relm of your subsect (denomination) of Christianity.
On a side note, did you know that South Americans don't consider Catholics as "Christians"? My wife tells me all the time "I'm not christian... I'm catholic." Apparently down there they label all other christians (protestants) as christians and catholics as catholics.
really well thats the first i heard about that subject in South America. interesting. did u also kno that all evangelization in the new world(america) was done by catholics aswell as all paintings, or atleast most. also the purtians believed in predestination, in other words some pple were predestined to go to heaven while others to hell so why try to convert the natives. I learned this from a historian, pretty interesting, i thought.
I think we can agree that Christianity goes a little bit beyond just believing in Christ/God but also having a deep relationship with him. Agree or no?
Thats very debateable. The majority of people in all religions practice/ believe sparingly. You get a few that are fanaticals, some that try to maintain faith, and many that are name only.
well all i kno is what Christians did in the early church, thats where my model is for a Christian. oddly enough lots of saints during those times. lots of martyrs too...hope i dont end up being the latter.lol
I base my belief in God on facts, u kno like scientific evidence, that sorta thing. Fanaticals huh? theres really no such thing as a fanatical Christian, because if he takes things too far he's not a Christian. And if a Christian is just someone who believes in Christ/God then they must believe in what hes stands for right? So thats why I asked earlier who is God? you have to kno who he is in order to truly believe in him. if you dont kno who he is how can you kno ur following God. thats where fanatics come into play. I call it discernment.
Stay on topic please. This is a nice topic. It would be a shame if I had to close it.
we're tryin daddy we're tryin. btw checked out ur portfolio, pretty nice stuff. my only concern is porportion. some drawings feel like some of the porportion is off, not sure if it was intentional, but you got solid stuff. good sense o shading, try to get more into color, experiment man u got untapped talent there. keep it going.
Please forgive my selfishness since I did not take the time to read more than a few posts (the thread is huuuge).
Proving that God exists on a theoretical level always allows it to be disproved. What people fail to recognize is that both his existence and non-existence can be right at the same time. Allow me to explain.
To argue for the existence of God first requires us to define him, which is not possible in my opinion (you can always get closer, kind of like an asymptote) but defining him mentally will always be an incomplete job. I like to see it like infinity.. how big is it?
So any religious believer that claims to believe in God through logical argument is bound to be believing in his mental construct, an idea, a definition that is only his (a lot times not even). Forcing this idea onto others brought us the wars we have seen.
The other side of the coin is not any better. Labeling yourself as an atheist is easy, when the job of disproving one of the millions of definitions of God that you've come to understand is easy.
So my take on this is to drop it all and look around. The shapes, the colors, the complexity, the balance, the beauty, the feeling of it.. Do you realize that everything was built/or came from "nothing"(the size of space required to fulfill the conditions for the bigbang to occur IS close to nothing)? Do you know that most of what you are and most of everything you see/touch IS nothing? If you can lift your eyes off the screen and see what I mean then you're present in the moment. And if you can live most of your life being present, then you know that arguments rarely lead to more than arguments.
The source is counciousness operating infinitely in the whole spectrum of light.
I think its time we let go our old beliefs and restrains. We can still read into the holy books that already have but always remember that they are a subject of interpretation. These books can offer us great knowledge.
Untill we wont develop a language that cannot be interpreted we will be still disagreeing about things and even some things which may look as defenite to some, might still look unreasonable to others... Interpretation.
Saying that according to current evidence that God does not exist is a tough one because you need to define what is God for you. For an example, i could believe that conciousness is simply always existing metaphysicaly. I could believe that the nature we precieve around us, is actually light that shines in specific waves and creates certain illusions for us to see, hear etc.
I could totally say that this is enough evidence for me to believe that there actually is a conciousness energy. Not a deity and not a being, but simply energy waves. And that is what could be called, Intelligent infinity.
An entity like Yahweh could only be a being operating in this field of light and precieved by us as a creator of worlds. Just because we are so tiny, its actually kind of funny. An ant could live its whole life unaware of your presence, even if you were standing right untop of her.
The field of Ufo'logy and archeology are connected to our modern understanding of the universe. Not to talk about modern physics etc. I think that only when space proggrams will run by private corporations and commitees, all of the information could be disclosed to the public. As long as our space proggrams are dare i say, militaristic, then we will only be fed with piles of bullshit.
I just think that people should be more open minded.
Well I don´t think one can prove the existance of god. John Lennon said "god is concept". And logic says that the part can´t comprehend the whole, so the phrase "prove it exists" would be invalid even if God really does.
All we can do for now is accpet that both science and religion are way to biased some times. Science is supposed to change its beliefs when new discoveries are made, confirming or denying theories and adpting to what is known at the time - they have a real hard time doing so. And religions needs to see that all books were written by men, using their knowlodge and vocabulary and based on their culture, so many concepts beyond "be good", "love", can in fact be allegories, and don't forget that religion is also a domination tool (medieval europe)
But science is getting into something not so materialistic:
1 - Studies on nonlocal consciousness - You are not your brain! Maybe YOU don´t die when your body cease to function.
2 - Akashic Field or something like it - Conection between everything desregards of distance or any known connection, still researching with particles .
3 - Subatomical strutctures - hindu guys are saying that like forever.
4 - Influence of prays and good thoughts on ill peopple that doesn't even know they are being targeted by these factors - to avoid any kind of placebo or psicological effect to cause self restore.
And the good old situations you can´t explain with conventional science:
1 - Edgar Cayce (and others)reads on health, exactly location to find oil (depths and quantity included) - He was right on 50k reads and was not generical ones like "oh you should eat vegetabeles to get better"
2 - Children speaking languages that nobody ever spoken next to them, or knowing precise facts of a person on another country they never met.
3 - Peopple that died for short periods of time (no brain function) and rememberd what happened at the room or saw everything from a top perspective (telling medical mistakes, conversation and a stuff they could not see from the bed perspective)
4 - Mediunic paints and writings, tested and approved by arts and caligraphy experts, done by peopple with no paint/writing skills at all.
Atheists are, in general, as litteral and short sighted as any religious fanatics. They just lean to the opposite side.
Great examples dude. +1.
good info here just want to add a few things. first the medievil thing. if u study the history of Christianity you will come to sympathize b/c unbeknownst to man they have actually been killed tortured and persecuted more than pple know. Spanish civil war for instance, 1950ish, around there. if u were christian u were shot on sight. thousands of christians died. you will also, and this is more related to wat u referred to, find that any power that the Church ever had was GIVEN to the Church by the gov't, it wasnt taken. And ill add that Christianity is not a morality its not about being good, and its all for freedom, and about finding God in ur history. if u bring up the crusades, dont bother, because those acts were done by men who disobeyed the Church when she said not to fight with violence. men disobeyed, how typical. Also anything that is given power, without being checked at times becomes corrupt. this includes gov't, american, spanish, french, any gov't. also law enforcers such as polic officers can become corrupt when given power. This of course does not mean that the idea behind them is corrupt but the individual becomes corrupt and corrupts the idea.
not sure if this adds to topic but thought id share.
ALSO the hiroshima and nagasaki, i think thats how it spelled, bombing. guess who inhabited those parts. The ONLY christians in Japan at that time wiped out entirely. not sure if it was planned by gov't or whatever but thats just quite a coincidence. the only pple killed in those bombings happened to want peace. just another fun fact.
Please forgive my selfishness since I did not take the time to read more than a few posts (the thread is huuuge).
Proving that God exists on a theoretical level always allows it to be disproved. What people fail to recognize is that both his existence and non-existence can be right at the same time. Allow me to explain.
To argue for the existence of God first requires us to define him, which is not possible in my opinion (you can always get closer, kind of like an asymptote) but defining him mentally will always be an incomplete job. I like to see it like infinity.. how big is it?
So any religious believer that claims to believe in God through logical argument is bound to be believing in his mental construct, an idea, a definition that is only his (a lot times not even). Forcing this idea onto others brought us the wars we have seen.
The other side of the coin is not any better. Labeling yourself as an atheist is easy, when the job of disproving one of the millions of definitions of God that you've come to understand is easy.
So my take on this is to drop it all and look around. The shapes, the colors, the complexity, the balance, the beauty, the feeling of it.. Do you realize that everything was built/or came from "nothing"(the size of space required to fulfill the conditions for the bigbang to occur IS close to nothing)? Do you know that most of what you are and most of everything you see/touch IS nothing? If you can lift your eyes off the screen and see what I mean then you're present in the moment. And if you can live most of your life being present, then you know that arguments rarely lead to more than arguments.
I loled at the Odin post
God is Love. n im not talking about the love between girlfriend boyfriend, thats just a happy feeling thats GONE was he/she does something u dont like.
Odin post was awesome indeed!
Why is it whenever an atheist refers to the idea of god, it's always a sweeping generalization that creates these clear lines of division like "no crazy heaven or bearded jesus".
An atheist need not disprove all notions of god, just the ones that are able to be disputed. Hence, there is no use in arguing about the universe being god. If the universe is all that represents the concept of god, then there is no use for the word god. It is only the universe. God, as a word, carries more meaning than that.
Do you really think that if there really was a god, really was an afterlife, that it would be something that your physical being could conceive and easily brush off with it's lack of complexity do to it's laughable ideas of a man sitting on a throne?
If there really was a god who sent phrophets and such to earth, yes, I would expect him to make that known. If it is a totally transcendent universal concept, then there is no reason to assume there is anything but the universe. Not that it couldn't exist, but why bother rationalizing it?
I think there's a grey area that most atheists tend to avoid because of a lack of knowledge. I don't claim to know anything. I do choose to believe in a higher existence and a sort of afterlife. But who knows really.
We don't claim to know either. We just choose to be skeptical rather than faithful to a concept we have no proof or evidence for. Be that something grandios or simple, we don't acknowledge things that claim to be unknowable.
And because of that, why do people rush to label themselves? Why not just wait and find out? Why take a stance to specifically set yourself apart from others who could be right. But really you have no idea if you're right, if they're right, or if we're ALL wrong. I would rather admit that "I have no clue" than say "Well, given this evidence and this and that, THIS must be the answer...At least thats what I think." At the end of the day all "evidence" is nothing more than reaching.
Religious view: I donno, maybe
That's suspiciously like Pascal's wager. Sufficed to say, if there is a god and he created me a skeptic. It think he'll understand why I have lived this way.
Being Catholic is a way of life. Being a Christian is a (set) of belief(s). Aethism is not a way of life... it is a belief.
That's incredibly mis-leading, i'm sorry. Being catholic is a way of life, assuming you adhere to catholic dogma, which also makes it a belief system. Being Christian, also is both, but in a more general sense (there are more options). Being atheist isn't a belief, it's a refusal to accept concepts without evidence. I hesitate to say that it is a way of life either, since non-religious people span the bredth of societies and there are probably many takes on what it means to live the life of a secularist, a skeptic, a humanist, or whatever else.
I agree. A god would be completely aware of why someone was skeptical, and reasonably so. That is, if omnipotent and omniscient.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Religion and its strengths come from faith and belief in something you cannot prove. If there was ever undeniable, irrefutable proof that God existed it wouldn't spur people to believe in Him, just to fear Him.
I don't agree at all. Firstly, religion draws both it's strength and it's weakness from the prospect of absolute faith. Secondly, if there were undenyable proof for any one particular God, you can bet your ass the pious people of the world would take notice. Religious people have sough to prove the existence of their own brand of god since they developed the concept. They may also have blind faith, but they are not unashamed to seek evidence either. Most people live in a dichotomy where they function skeptically in everyday life, but suspend that skepticism every sunday, saturday, or friday at chruch/temple/mosque.
Also "prove me wrong" isn't an argument and you should feel shitty if you have to resort to using it.
I didn't ask to be proven wrong. As I stated, i'm making no such claims. I hold to the position that there is no evidence for such a thing as god. I'm asking for evidence, not that i'm right and wish to be proved wrong.
You should read the OP. I'm not claiming your god doesn't exist. I'm simply offering you the chance to prove to me that he/she/it does exist.
The question is open to be answered, one side claims to have those answers (my side says there hasn't been an evident answer). I'm simply asking for them to be presented.
Being Catholic is a way of life. Being a Christian is a (set) of belief(s). Aethism is not a way of life... it is a belief.
That's incredibly mis-leading, i'm sorry. Being catholic is a way of life, assuming you adhere to catholic dogma, which also makes it a belief system. Being Christian, also is both, but in a more general sense (there are more options). Being atheist isn't a belief, it's a refusal to accept concepts without evidence. I hesitate to say that it is a way of life either, since non-religious people span the bredth of societies and there are probably many takes on what it means to live the life of a secularist, a skeptic, a humanist, or whatever else.
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
According to www.dictionary.com, you are wrong sir. The definition no where states anything about concepts or evidence. It is a black-white definition. You either believe in a supreme being... or you don't.
Since my previous opinion was way 2 violent for some people i will just add a new one just saying that i don't believe in "God" or anything like that anymore, yes i did, but not anymore no reason to believe in something like that.
We forge our own destiny and life here on earth just enjoy it and try to make the best out of it. Don't expect when you pray to god to save you that he will do that if it does happen it's just luck in my opinion.
Everyone can believe in what they want tho not saying to change your fate just throwing my opinion out here.
Thats your opinion on the subject yes... but its not relevent to the topic on hand. The topic is in regards to evidence for or against a "god."
The topic is in regards to existence for or against a "god."
That's his reason to not believe in the existence of a God. Doesn't have to be a wall of text to be valid. He simply just doesn't believe anymore, he thinks it's more random.
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
According to www.dictionary.com, you are wrong sir. The definition no where states anything about concepts or evidence. It is a black-white definition. You either believe in a supreme being... or you don't.
Since i'm the atheist, i'd like to personally deny the concept most of us deny a supreme being is possible. DISBELIEVE, on the other hand, is perfectly sound. Belief is an assertion without evidence and atheists will not make any such assertion. But disbelief does not attest to anything except you see no evidence.
You can disbelieve in faires and not be labeled a fairy atheist who denies any possibility of fairies. Why can you not be an atheist in terms of a god without taking that kind of flack? There is equal physical evidence for Yahweh and faries (none) and in-fact the literary tradition for faries is likely older than the Hebrew concept of a monotheistic god.
The topic is in regards to existence for or against a "god."
That's his reason to not believe in the existence of a God. Doesn't have to be a wall of text to be valid. He simply just doesn't believe anymore, he thinks it's more random.
Ooooppppps of course my post didn't make sense I used the wrong word.
The topic is in regards to existence evidence for or against a "god."
The topic is in regards to existence evidence for or against a "god."
Wrong again, i'm afraid. You cannot prove a negative so there would really be no point in evidence against god in general. We can only say with certainty that there is no reason/evidence to think that any god being described here exists.
Again, I have to re-iterate: The only ones making an absolute assertion are those arguing for the existence of a particular god. A skeptic simply asks for evidence to prove that assertion, he does not attempt to prove the contrary, but in most cases will state problems with bogus assertions (if any are presented).
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
According to www.dictionary.com, you are wrong sir. The definition no where states anything about concepts or evidence. It is a black-white definition. You either believe in a supreme being... or you don't.
Since i'm the atheist, i'd like to personally deny the concept most of us deny a supreme being is possible. DISBELIEVE, on the other hand, is perfectly sound. Belief is an assertion without evidence and atheists will not make any such assertion. But disbelief does not attest to anything except you see no evidence.
You can disbelieve in faires and not be labeled a fairy atheist who denies any possibility of fairies. Why can you not be an atheist in terms of a god without taking that kind of flack? There is equal physical evidence for Yahweh and faries (none) and in-fact the literary tradition for faries is likely older than the Hebrew concept of a monotheistic god.
You realize that Yahweh is only the Jewish god right? That name is not applicable to Christianity or Islam.
Anyways, theres a difference between Faeries and Supreme Beings. Faeries are simply mythological creatures, whereas, divine beings have the same evidence that the big bang does. As I posted earlier in the thread, science creates a paradox in that we cannot exist if the rules of relativist physics holds true. God/Gods/etc lie outside of the universe and therefore do not require an origin. I can pull up my post again if you would like.
To use the dimensional example to explain god, if 2D beings existed, they would not be able to understand or conceptualize a 3D being, as their brain only thinks in 2D. Our human brains think in what I call 3.5D as we can only truely conceptualize time as moving foward. Our human brains cannot conceptualize anything beyond this, and this is why so many people try to say that God requires an origin as well.
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats very debateable. The majority of people in all religions practice/ believe sparingly. You get a few that are fanaticals, some that try to maintain faith, and many that are name only.
I base my belief in God on facts, u kno like scientific evidence, that sorta thing. Fanaticals huh? theres really no such thing as a fanatical Christian, because if he takes things too far he's not a Christian. And if a Christian is just someone who believes in Christ/God then they must believe in what hes stands for right? So thats why I asked earlier who is God? you have to kno who he is in order to truly believe in him. if you dont kno who he is how can you kno ur following God. thats where fanatics come into play. I call it discernment.
Proving that God exists on a theoretical level always allows it to be disproved. What people fail to recognize is that both his existence and non-existence can be right at the same time. Allow me to explain.
To argue for the existence of God first requires us to define him, which is not possible in my opinion (you can always get closer, kind of like an asymptote) but defining him mentally will always be an incomplete job. I like to see it like infinity.. how big is it?
So any religious believer that claims to believe in God through logical argument is bound to be believing in his mental construct, an idea, a definition that is only his (a lot times not even). Forcing this idea onto others brought us the wars we have seen.
The other side of the coin is not any better. Labeling yourself as an atheist is easy, when the job of disproving one of the millions of definitions of God that you've come to understand is easy.
So my take on this is to drop it all and look around. The shapes, the colors, the complexity, the balance, the beauty, the feeling of it.. Do you realize that everything was built/or came from "nothing"(the size of space required to fulfill the conditions for the bigbang to occur IS close to nothing)? Do you know that most of what you are and most of everything you see/touch IS nothing? If you can lift your eyes off the screen and see what I mean then you're present in the moment. And if you can live most of your life being present, then you know that arguments rarely lead to more than arguments.
I loled at the Odin post
not sure if this adds to topic but thought id share.
ALSO the hiroshima and nagasaki, i think thats how it spelled, bombing. guess who inhabited those parts. The ONLY christians in Japan at that time wiped out entirely. not sure if it was planned by gov't or whatever but thats just quite a coincidence. the only pple killed in those bombings happened to want peace. just another fun fact.
Odin post was awesome indeed!
An atheist need not disprove all notions of god, just the ones that are able to be disputed. Hence, there is no use in arguing about the universe being god. If the universe is all that represents the concept of god, then there is no use for the word god. It is only the universe. God, as a word, carries more meaning than that.
If there really was a god who sent phrophets and such to earth, yes, I would expect him to make that known. If it is a totally transcendent universal concept, then there is no reason to assume there is anything but the universe. Not that it couldn't exist, but why bother rationalizing it?
We don't claim to know either. We just choose to be skeptical rather than faithful to a concept we have no proof or evidence for. Be that something grandios or simple, we don't acknowledge things that claim to be unknowable.
That's suspiciously like Pascal's wager. Sufficed to say, if there is a god and he created me a skeptic. It think he'll understand why I have lived this way.
That's incredibly mis-leading, i'm sorry. Being catholic is a way of life, assuming you adhere to catholic dogma, which also makes it a belief system. Being Christian, also is both, but in a more general sense (there are more options). Being atheist isn't a belief, it's a refusal to accept concepts without evidence. I hesitate to say that it is a way of life either, since non-religious people span the bredth of societies and there are probably many takes on what it means to live the life of a secularist, a skeptic, a humanist, or whatever else.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I don't agree at all. Firstly, religion draws both it's strength and it's weakness from the prospect of absolute faith. Secondly, if there were undenyable proof for any one particular God, you can bet your ass the pious people of the world would take notice. Religious people have sough to prove the existence of their own brand of god since they developed the concept. They may also have blind faith, but they are not unashamed to seek evidence either. Most people live in a dichotomy where they function skeptically in everyday life, but suspend that skepticism every sunday, saturday, or friday at chruch/temple/mosque.
I didn't ask to be proven wrong. As I stated, i'm making no such claims. I hold to the position that there is no evidence for such a thing as god. I'm asking for evidence, not that i'm right and wish to be proved wrong.
You should read the OP. I'm not claiming your god doesn't exist. I'm simply offering you the chance to prove to me that he/she/it does exist.
The question is open to be answered, one side claims to have those answers (my side says there hasn't been an evident answer). I'm simply asking for them to be presented.
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
According to www.dictionary.com, you are wrong sir. The definition no where states anything about concepts or evidence. It is a black-white definition. You either believe in a supreme being... or you don't.
Thats your opinion on the subject yes... but its not relevent to the topic on hand. The topic is in regards to evidence for or against a "god."
That's his reason to not believe in the existence of a God. Doesn't have to be a wall of text to be valid. He simply just doesn't believe anymore, he thinks it's more random.
Since i'm the atheist, i'd like to personally deny the concept most of us deny a supreme being is possible. DISBELIEVE, on the other hand, is perfectly sound. Belief is an assertion without evidence and atheists will not make any such assertion. But disbelief does not attest to anything except you see no evidence.
You can disbelieve in faires and not be labeled a fairy atheist who denies any possibility of fairies. Why can you not be an atheist in terms of a god without taking that kind of flack? There is equal physical evidence for Yahweh and faries (none) and in-fact the literary tradition for faries is likely older than the Hebrew concept of a monotheistic god.
Ooooppppps of course my post didn't make sense I used the wrong word.
The topic is in regards to
existenceevidence for or against a "god."Wrong again, i'm afraid. You cannot prove a negative so there would really be no point in evidence against god in general. We can only say with certainty that there is no reason/evidence to think that any god being described here exists.
Again, I have to re-iterate: The only ones making an absolute assertion are those arguing for the existence of a particular god. A skeptic simply asks for evidence to prove that assertion, he does not attempt to prove the contrary, but in most cases will state problems with bogus assertions (if any are presented).
You realize that Yahweh is only the Jewish god right? That name is not applicable to Christianity or Islam.
Anyways, theres a difference between Faeries and Supreme Beings. Faeries are simply mythological creatures, whereas, divine beings have the same evidence that the big bang does. As I posted earlier in the thread, science creates a paradox in that we cannot exist if the rules of relativist physics holds true. God/Gods/etc lie outside of the universe and therefore do not require an origin. I can pull up my post again if you would like.