For the love of god, can someone explain who created god?

[BilliardsBall]

Not schizophrenia since it is supported by observations and experimentation. What evidence do you have for your beliefs?



That is a combination of a strawman and a non sequitur on your part. Your side is the one guilty of special pleading fallacies here. The last claim appears nowhere in atheist claims. Perhaps you should try to learn what you are arguing against. Try again but ask one at a time.

"it is supported by observations and experimentation" that everything came from nothing?!

Please feel free to cite the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy in your response...

 

[WalterTrull]

I gave you one. Did you not understand it? A fossil that was seriously out of order would be a huge threat to the theory. Large scale violation of nested hierarchies would refute the theory. Heck, a dog giving birth to a cat would refute the theory By the way, there is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist concept.

OK, I'm just not following this anymore. Our reasonings seem askew. Believe I'll bow out now and let you guys thrash it out.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Truely Enlightened,
I am very sorry to inform you that you have just the attitude that Jesus was speaking about at Luke 10:21, which says that God’s words cannot be understood by the wise and intellectual ones, like yourself, but can be understood by babes, Matthew 11:25.
Another requirement is to be humble, like a child, asking questions, wanting to know things, Matthew 18:1-7. You seem to be one who wants to be a stumbling block.
Another requirement to understand God’s words is a good heart, which it seems you are lacking, Matthew 13:13-15, 15:18,19.
Unless you change your attitude you cannot understand because you see with fleshly eyes, you cannot see with spirit, which you must have to understand. This precept is explained perfectly at 1Corinthians 2:1-15.
There is another reason for not being able to understand even simple things of God, that a person is just too wicked, which I hope is not your problem, Daniel 12:10, Isaiah 26:10.
It would behoove you to do a little genuflection, and maybe God will allow you to see, because understanding God’s message to mankind is your only hope of a future, according to the Holy Scriptures, 2Thessalonians 2:7-13.
If you truely want to know about God’s Holy writings, Please ask a question, because I can see clearly that the Bible is Terra Incognita to you.

I am sorry that I am not stupid, ignorant, unscholarly, or have the mind of a child, in order to understand the meaning of 2700 year-old words, written by man, to placate religious leaders, sheep and goat herders during the iron age. As your quote-mining suggests. I am sorry that you need to resort to biblical quote-mining, as though it is an inerrant source of truth and morality. I am also sorry that it is YOU that do not understand the Bible's history or purpose. Do the research, because I've certainly done mine. Maybe you can explain the meaning of "us" in "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil"?(Gen 3:22) Why after eating the fruit from the tree, did they not have ultimate wisdom and everlasting life? Or, did the tree's properties have some fine print attached?

I am also sorry to inform you that history has clearly demonstrated that your beliefs are not as exclusive as you have convinced yourself. Every culture has a Genesis story. Every culture has a supreme deity(s). Every culture demonstrates mans fall from grace. And every culture has myths and fairy tales to entertain the children. Yours is not unique.

Since you don't seem to understand the burden of proof, let me help you. If you tell me you have a cat, I have no reason to not believe you. That's because it is not unusual for people to own cats. Therefore, no evidence is required. If you tell me you own a pet lion, then some evidence is required(photo's, vet bill, neighborhood complaints, etc.). But if you tell me you own an invisible pet dragon, then an extraordinary amount of evidence is required. You have the burden of proof to support your claim. You can't shift this responsibility by asking others to prove that you don't own an invisible pet dragon. Since all believers can't support their extraordinary claims with evidence, they are left only with, "prove I'm wrong", or "you are just incapable of understanding", as their only retort.

You are correct, dealing with adult children is definitely "terra incognita" for me. Don

 

[syo]

"Creation" implies a before and an after, and therefore implies the existence of time. "God created time" is nonsensical (like "north of the North Pole").

god is the starting of time

 

[fallingblood]

I've already admitted that the statement itself wasn't a claim to facts.

Of course my statement is absurd. Is it almost as absurd as suggesting a God exists?

Uh oh? Did you just do the same thing I mentioned the other theist did when you condemned my absurd statement?

The hypocrisy raises its ugly head again!

Suggesting that God may exist isn't absurd. Claiming God exists, as a statement of fact, would be absurd. The belief in God isn't absurd though. To some it may be considered absurd, but that is a matter of opinion.

I didn't condemn your absurd statement either. I was pointing out that it was just as absurd as the opposite statement. More so, in the context of everything, there was no way to even see that you were purposely making an absurd statement, or a valid argument at all. We have to depend on what people say, not what they may be thinking when they say that.

There is no hypocrisy here. I would have said the same thing if you made the opposite claim.

 

[ExVasterist]

With all due respect, your false analogies and equivocation fallacies are just silly. The part that you seem to want to dilute or ignore, is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any kind, supporting the existence of a God that can stand up to ANY Scientific scrutiny. That is different from having at least questionable, incomplete, or even debatable evidence. There is simply NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

We can never be 100% certain about anything, even in science. But that doesn't mean that all silly beliefs receives carte blanche, without at least some evidence. Like most believers, the old unfalsifiable "absolute" card is drawn whenever logic threatens their beliefs. Since no one can be 100% percent certain of anything, then your position can never be 100% wrong. Another blatant fallacy, since you ignore degrees of certainty. Is your faith always 100% certain. If it is, then you are a God. You also neglected to mention that there must have been some evidence for you to believe that a relationship was possible in the first place(common interests, mutual feelings, mutual acceptance and agreements). Also, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, or absolute morality. Unless you can give me an example.

What is your point? Are you suggesting that the scientific community should accept your position and logic, because the evidence is "Beyond all the laws of the cosmos & reality". Sorry, science is NOT faith-based. It does not accept evidence that is based on false cause, ad populum, straw man or from ignorance arguments. Science does not concern itself with trying to prove subjective experiences, myths, beliefs, and fairytales. It is ironic that you criticise those who do not expand their reality to include myths, superstitions, God(s), miracles, talking animals, and the supernatural, yet you seek scientific validation to give your position the perception of rational truth. Go figure! Don

1. I'm looking at this debate of Supernatural vs Physical from a Neutral view.
2. I NEVER said that Science is based on Faith, I said RELIGION is based on Faith!

No, I am saying that NEITHER side (Religion & Science) can NEVER prove or disprove the existence of ANY Deity.

Why can Religion never prove that God is real: Because the Science Community will never accept Supernatural anything as evidence.

Why can Science never prove that God isn't real: The Science community does not believe in Supernatural, they need physical evidence, even though there is none.

I am basing everything on what believers believe (God is beyond our comprehension) vs the typical things that Science would say/want as evidence, I am not a believer myself, but I'm not gonna take the stance that "because no evidence has been found, therefore doesn't exist" cause I do not know.

I dunno how you thought I am saying "science is based on faith" when I never did, and that I seek my own "validation of scientific proof" when I already said there is no way to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of God or anything supernatural.

 

[suncowiam]

Suggesting that God may exist isn't absurd. Claiming God exists, as a statement of fact, would be absurd. The belief in God isn't absurd though. To some it may be considered absurd, but that is a matter of opinion.

I didn't condemn your absurd statement either. I was pointing out that it was just as absurd as the opposite statement. More so, in the context of everything, there was no way to even see that you were purposely making an absurd statement, or a valid argument at all. We have to depend on what people say, not what they may be thinking when they say that.

There is no hypocrisy here. I would have said the same thing if you made the opposite claim.

The belief of anything without material data is absurd. It is absolutely absurd to assert fantasy as possible.

How is that not obvious? Fantasy brings about an infinite amount of scenarios.

Your defense is that it is reasonable and logical as long as its done personally. That these wild beliefs are valid as long as they are not forced upon others.

Although, I do agree with that in the sense that some topics will always be subjective but, overall, people have to hold themselves accountable for their beliefs.

The best process for anyone are those that are based on objective measurements.

Otherwise, people can convince themselves of anything good or bad. People could be living in fear of imaginary repercussions because they believe in an entity that would punish for arbitrary rules.

My criticism to all theists is purely this. That they all rely on a subjective process to rule their lives.

The hypocrisy I detailed is the following. I stated several things prior to this. Other theists suggested them as artificial and also wanted me to prove my assertions. That is hypocrisy coming from theists whom will never be able to prove their beliefs. Plain and simple.

Look, I actually defend many moderate theists from their extremists counterparts. I understand for many theists, its about attaining processes to enlighten their lives. I understand many deal with depression and spirituality is a great process to help with that. I get that. I see good from many theists. I support my local Christian chapter because they help the homeless and hungry. My kids went to their school.

However, the same process that enables good from theists is EXACTLY the same process that enables destruction, hate, and bigotry from theists. It is the subjective nature of their belief systems that enables this. IMO, the greater good is to reform these processes to allow for objective measurements. Otherwise, if you have a suggestion to stop these destructive, hateful and bigoted beliefs from theists then I'm all ears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"it is supported by observations and experimentation" that everything came from nothing?!

Please feel free to cite the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy in your response...

There is no violation of that law. Do you understand it?

 

[ExVasterist]

I think I need to crystallize what my question was (please note that of course I'm aware that there are many people whose beliefs are faith-based and not all creationists subscribe to the following argument) :

Creationist: We exist. Therefore we were created.
Me: Do you believe god exists?
Creationist: Yes.
Me: Then, by your logic, god must have been created, right?

Creationist: < Please write your answer here >

Initially, I don't think Creationists believe that "we exist, therefore we were created" , they have to read on that possibility.
Whatever religion they join or were raised in depends on whether or not their deity claims "I created you".

But my question to you @FlyingTeaPot is, why does god or any deity need to be created or have an origin? Why do you want so badly to prove or disprove the existence of whatever deity?

I'm sure you already know by now that most believers are gonna quote their scripture, mention some experience they had involving that deity, or will say that god is beyond our comprehension.

You have to look at it from their view to understand where they are coming from. I was a believer once, I once believed that God of Catholicism (yeah, glad I'm no longer catholic) is infallible, infinite in pretty much everything, but lost the faith when I started to really question things that are not in the bible, and because I couldn't get any sort of answer from God, I then thought "Maybe he hates me, maybe he'll ignore me regardless of what I say or do, and maybe he isn't really there".

I use to think that God wasn't real, but then realized "How could I know? Yeah, he didn't respond, but how does that mean he isn't real?" best way to treat it: You call someone, you leave messages, they never respond to those messages, is it right to assume the person you're calling isn't real because they never pick up?

I still can't say that I believe in God, but I won't act like there is no deity just cause I can't communicate with one. If it was bull, why do so many MILLIONS believe their god is real & say they have communicated with their god?

I know its hard to accept their viewpoint since there are so many contradicting things to do with God. But if you're trying to look for a logical reason, honestly they are threatened with hell (eternal torment) if they refuse to believe and are promised paradise (eternal happiness & peace) if they believe.
If you look at it from their view, wouldn't it be illogical to refuse, to risk going to a realm of eternal torment simply because you don't believe?

I know you want answers, but from scientific stand point, I doubt you'll get the answers that you want, they'll all basically be the same answers that every believer would say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I'm just not following this anymore. Our reasonings seem askew. Believe I'll bow out now and let you guys thrash it out.

How could our "reasonings" be askew? I gave you more than one example of how the theory of evolution would be tested? Did you not understand? I can go into more detail if needed. It appears that you have a false concept on how theories are tested. Can you tell me how you think that it would have to be tested?

 

[fallingblood]

The belief of anything without material data is absurd. It is absolutely absurd to assert fantasy as possible.

You're promoting an opinion, not fact here. More so, the existence of God is completely possible. It may be improbable, but that is different. To label such an idea as being fantasy is an opinion, and a very biased one at that. You can't pass it off as fact.

How is that not obvious? Fantasy brings about an infinite amount of scenarios.

Is the idea of God a fantasy though? You can't show that. So your argument isn't obvious, or built on a solid foundation.

Your defense is that it is reasonable and logical as long as its done personally. That these wild beliefs are valid as long as they are not forced upon others.

That's not my defense at all. I never said that the belief in God is reasonable or logical. I never suggested Creationism was either. And I said nothing about forcing them on others. You're making a straw man here.

Although, I do agree with that in the sense that some topics will always be subjective but, overall, people have to hold themselves accountable for their beliefs.

I agree. But that is neither here nor there in regards to the topic.

The best process for anyone are those that are based on objective measurements.

That's an opinion, and a very biased opinion. What works best for you doesn't necessarily work best for others.

Otherwise, people can convince themselves of anything good or bad. People could be living in fear of imaginary repercussions because they believe in an entity that would punish for arbitrary rules.

People can do that anyway. One could say that is part of human nature. People, using objective measurements, convince themselves and others of bs all the time. Those objective measurements even change as more data is given.

And who cares if people may be living in fear of imaginary repercussions. That's there right. If they want to believe in God, and believe that God has set out some arbitrary rules to live by, so be it, as long as they don't hurt others. That's called freedom.

My criticism to all theists is purely this. That they all rely on a subjective process to rule their lives.

And that is completely false. I'm a theist. That in no way rules my life. Look up fideism. Look up liberal theology. You're statement here is simply false.

The hypocrisy I detailed is the following. I stated several things prior to this. Other theists suggested them as artificial and also wanted me to prove my assertions. That is hypocrisy coming from theists whom will never be able to prove their beliefs. Plain and simple.

This is silly, plain and simple. You are acting as if all theists are a unified front, and thus, what one says reflects on another. I'm not being a hypocrite because you talked to a different theist that said something else. That's ridiculous.

If you claim that God doesn't exist, or is a fantasy, or anything, I will ask you to prove that. I will do that exact same thing if someone claims that God exists. Any definitive statement on God's existence should be challenged, as God's existence, either positive or negative, can't be proven.

What can't be challenged is someone saying they have faith God exists, or doesn't exist. That's not a definitive statement, and it doesn't rely on proof.

However, the same process that enables good from theists is EXACTLY the same process that enables destruction, hate, and bigotry from theists. It is the subjective nature of their belief systems that enables this. IMO, the greater good is to reform these processes to allow for objective measurements. Otherwise, if you have a suggestion to stop these destructive, hateful and bigoted beliefs from theists then I'm all ears.

What enables hate, bigotry, and destruction is not theism in any way. Its humanity. It's human nature. Humans will find any reason to justify it. Take away religion, and you will have the same exact issue.

Look at slavery in the U.S. It was never justified by Christianity until a movement arose to have slavery abolished. This movement was largely led by Christians who cited the Bible as a source. Jews were also pretty active in this, again, using religious text to support the abolition of slavery. It is only after that that proponents of slavery turned to religion to justify an institution that had previously been justified because of economics. And then, the justification came from a twisted reading of Noah's story. More to this, when the South ceded, their defense of slavery had nothing to do with religion, but with economics. By objective measurements.

My point is that religion is not the reason for the hate, bigotry, etc. you point to. It exists in the non-religious as well, as is defended through a variety of manners. Removing religion does nothing.

 

[suncowiam]

You're promoting an opinion, not fact here. More so, the existence of God is completely possible. It may be improbable, but that is different. To label such an idea as being fantasy is an opinion, and a very biased one at that. You can't pass it off as fact.
Is the idea of God a fantasy though? You can't show that. So your argument isn't obvious, or built on a solid foundation.
That's not my defense at all. I never said that the belief in God is reasonable or logical. I never suggested Creationism was either. And I said nothing about forcing them on others. You're making a straw man here.
I agree. But that is neither here nor there in regards to the topic.
That's an opinion, and a very biased opinion. What works best for you doesn't necessarily work best for others.
People can do that anyway. One could say that is part of human nature. People, using objective measurements, convince themselves and others of bs all the time. Those objective measurements even change as more data is given.

And who cares if people may be living in fear of imaginary repercussions. That's there right. If they want to believe in God, and believe that God has set out some arbitrary rules to live by, so be it, as long as they don't hurt others. That's called freedom.
And that is completely false. I'm a theist. That in no way rules my life. Look up fideism. Look up liberal theology. You're statement here is simply false.
This is silly, plain and simple. You are acting as if all theists are a unified front, and thus, what one says reflects on another. I'm not being a hypocrite because you talked to a different theist that said something else. That's ridiculous.

If you claim that God doesn't exist, or is a fantasy, or anything, I will ask you to prove that. I will do that exact same thing if someone claims that God exists. Any definitive statement on God's existence should be challenged, as God's existence, either positive or negative, can't be proven.

What can't be challenged is someone saying they have faith God exists, or doesn't exist. That's not a definitive statement, and it doesn't rely on proof.
What enables hate, bigotry, and destruction is not theism in any way. Its humanity. It's human nature. Humans will find any reason to justify it. Take away religion, and you will have the same exact issue.

Look at slavery in the U.S. It was never justified by Christianity until a movement arose to have slavery abolished. This movement was largely led by Christians who cited the Bible as a source. Jews were also pretty active in this, again, using religious text to support the abolition of slavery. It is only after that that proponents of slavery turned to religion to justify an institution that had previously been justified because of economics. And then, the justification came from a twisted reading of Noah's story. More to this, when the South ceded, their defense of slavery had nothing to do with religion, but with economics. By objective measurements.

My point is that religion is not the reason for the hate, bigotry, etc. you point to. It exists in the non-religious as well, as is defended through a variety of manners. Removing religion does nothing.

I don't like to split up comments and have comments grow to unmanageable sizes.

Yes, many of my claims are subjective. The word absurd is subjective in nature so it implied an opinion.

Any belief that cannot be proven is fantasy. Probable and improbable are two sides of the same coin. They both state a sense of probability just spoken from the opposite perspective.

You and I cannot state the actual probability in a percentage that the God exists. We both know that it's not 100% and its not 0%. It is some value between 100 and 0. However, that argument is true for any imaginary being. So again, fantasy can bring about an infinite amount of content that technically we will never be able to disprove. But we come to the conclusion of many things with reasonable certainty. We reasonably suggests to ourselves that big foot, unicorns, Santa Clause and so on does not exist. I and many atheists reasonably concluded that God does not exists. But before you get antsy with that, reasonable is a loaded subjective term. So you and other theists, reasonably concluded that God does exist. So in other words, we are no where with this. And frankly, I don't want to continue the argument of God's existence. You and I have been down this road many times with no conclusion or agreement, right?

Concerning religion... I didn't say religion is the source of all destruction, hate and bigotry. I did make the point that religion can be a source of good. My point is that religion does not have processes to regulate itself from the ideals of destruction, hate and bigotry. Another way to state this, is that not all religion is uniformed. For every religion or theist that promotes good, you will have another religion or theist that promotes bad. Until religion can produce uniformity, then yes, IMO, the greater good is to remove religion or suspend it until it can regulate itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're promoting an opinion, not fact here. More so, the existence of God is completely possible. It may be improbable, but that is different. To label such an idea as being fantasy is an opinion, and a very biased one at that. You can't pass it off as fact.

I have to correct this claim. We don't know if the existence of a God is possible. Claiming that it is "completely possible" is wrong. That puts the burden of proof upon you to show that the existence of a God is possible and I do not know how you would do that. To be fair we do not know if the existence of a God is "completely impossible" either.

 

[Skwim]

^ pretty dumb question childishly posed.

......Everyone duck and cover!

.​

 

[InChrist]

And the reliable evidence that supports this claim is ... ?

The inspired words of the Bible, along with creation itself. I realize you very likely don't consider this evidence, yet I think it is far more than adequate and anyone who really takes the time to do the research finds it so.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:1

 

[Subduction Zone]

The inspired words of the Bible, along with creation itself. I realize you very likely don't consider this evidence, yet I think it is far more than adequate and anyone who really takes the time to do the research finds it so.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:1

So no reliable evidence at all since the many contradictions in the Bible demonstrate alone that it is hardly "inspired".

 

[fallingblood]

I have to correct this claim. We don't know if the existence of a God is possible. Claiming that it is "completely possible" is wrong. That puts the burden of proof upon you to show that the existence of a God is possible and I do not know how you would do that. To be fair we do not know if the existence of a God is "completely impossible" either.

Claiming that the existence of God is possible isn't wrong. It's a possibility God exists; however, the probability is low. Having a possibility to exist doesn't suggest that God exists, it simply says there is a possibility. There is also the possibility that God doesn't exist.

I don't have the burden of proof here as I'm not actually making a definitive statement, or even suggesting anything. But by definition, God has the possibility of existing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming that the existence of God is possible isn't wrong. It's a possibility God exists; however, the probability is low. Having a possibility to exist doesn't suggest that God exists, it simply says there is a possibility. There is also the possibility that God doesn't exist.

I don't have the burden of proof here as I'm not actually making a definitive statement, or even suggesting anything. But by definition, God has the possibility of existing.

Actually no, it may be possible that a god exist. That does not mean it is possible. There is a big difference. There are some things that we no to be possible. It is possible that the Mariners someday will win the World Series. Highly unlikely, but possible. There are things that we know are impossible. We know through biology that a horse cannot sire a Pegasus. That is a biological impossibility. We do not know whether it is possible that a god exists or not. We do not know if faster than light travel is possible or not. There is ever amassing evidence that says no, but hope springs eternal in the heart of nerdy science fiction fans.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually no, it may be possible that a god exist. That does not mean it is possible. There is a big difference. There are some things that we no to be possible. It is possible that the Mariners someday will win the World Series. Highly unlikely, but possible. There are things that we know are impossible. We know through biology that a horse cannot sire a Pegasus. That is a biological impossibility. We do not know whether it is possible that a god exists or not. We do not know if faster than light travel is possible or not. There is ever amassing evidence that says no, but hope springs eternal in the heart of nerdy science fiction fans.

What you’re saying is only true under Aristotelian logic. And really only in certain contexts.

From a historical background, one that I’m coming from, it is generally that anything is possible. What historians have to do is decide what is actually probable. That’s why from a historical perspective, we can’t rule out miracles. We can simply say they are improbable because by definition they are the least likely thing to have occurred.

From a historical perspective then, it is completely possible that God existed or exists. The probability is just low.

So yes, it’s possible that God exists. There is no need to prove such unless one makes the claim it is probable.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

[
QUOTE="ExVasterist, post: 5501019, member: 63707"]1. I'm looking at this debate of Supernatural vs Physical from a Neutral view.
2. I NEVER said that Science is based on Faith, I said RELIGION is based on Faith!

No, I am saying that NEITHER side (Religion & Science) can NEVER prove or disprove the existence of ANY Deity.

Why can Religion never prove that God is real: Because the Science Community will never accept Supernatural anything as evidence.

Why can Science never prove that God isn't real: The Science community does not believe in Supernatural, they need physical evidence, even though there is none.

I am basing everything on what believers believe (God is beyond our comprehension) vs the typical things that Science would say/want as evidence, I am not a believer myself, but I'm not gonna take the stance that "because no evidence has been found, therefore doesn't exist" cause I do not know.

I dunno how you thought I am saying "science is based on faith" when I never did, and that I seek my own "validation of scientific proof" when I already said there is no way to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of God or anything supernatural.[/QUOTE]

I will ignore your straw man, since no one claimed you said science is faith based. My statement was only a truth claim, that science is fact(data) based. The problem with believers is that they keep saying that they BELIEVE in the existence of God, but what they really mean is that they KNOW that their God exists. Belief requires zero evidence and zero knowledge. In any rational debate, both sides must present evidence to support their claims. There are mountains of facts, data, theories, evidence, and fallacy-free logic to explain most physical and natural phenomena. But there is zero evidence of any kind to explain supernatural claims. Science can't remain objective once it starts accepting supernatural claims(without evidence) as a rational explanation for anything. If supernatural explanations in the Bible are accepted as true, then ALL supernatural explanations are also true. Science is truly limited, and for very good reasons.

Why do you state the obvious, as though it is wrong? Why don't you explain WHY science does not accept unproven supernatural explanations? As I have stated before, this is not about science trying to disprove the existence of God. This is about Believer's trying to defend their extraordinary truth claims, by shifting the burden of proof to non-believer. If 3/4 of the world's population believe in some kind of Deity, surely there must be at least ONE objective bit of evidence to justify a life of pius servitude, and blind obedience. Surely there must be some objective evidence to support the belief that when you die, you will be born again. Surely someone can demonstrate at least one example of the power of prayer, a miracle, a resurrection, or any evidence that will support a supernatural existence. Surely there must be more than, "well you can't prove me wrong", or, "you must believe first, and then you will understand like us".

My father use to tell me that the more you repeat something, the more people will think it to be the truth. Truth simply becomes irrelevant. Since you admit you have no position, then you are not part of the debate. Since science does not claim that God(s), the supernatural, or miracles, do not or cannot exist, you have created another straw man. Science only claims that there is no objective evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, or a God(s). If you simply believe in myths and fairy tales, then keep it to yourself. If you know that your extraordinary claims are true, then prove it. Don