There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

What he's presented is 'evidence'. And 'evidence' can be argued for and against. That's why we have courtrooms and debates.

If someone imagines something, do we call it evidence, just because of popularity?

 

[outhouse]

void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists

.

Since atheist are not a group, but more or less individuals.


The brainwashing must be colleges and professors, where they teach knowledge.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.


YOU notice how NO gods are mentioned in any part of that? wonder why?

Where do you get your creationist view from exactly??????????

Let me take a guess since you enjoy guessing so much!

Ancient people who used previous cultures mythology to explain what they did not know, to then teach morals and THEIR wisdom around their Pseudoscience and pseudo history. They thought the earth was flat and that gods had HUGE part in the nature they knew nothing about.

 

[Serenity7855]

As I already responded to this, convincing and satisfying the mind are the same thing. You can't get out of this by playing semantics. You have presented the case for your side, and it would not convince (or satisfy the mind of or any other phrase you want) an impartial unbiased person. It doesn't convince me, for instance.

Convinced defined : To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action. See Synonyms at persuade.

To satisfy the mind defined: to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.); give full contentment to: The hearty meal satisfied him.

To convince is to proactively try to persuade someone that what you are saying is true.

To satisfy the mind is to allow that person to decide without persuasion or coercion.

Look, you have said certain things. If you really want an honest debate/discussion you can't go around pretending you didn't say them. I'm not making anything up. Maybe it's that English isn't your first language, or that for some reason you honestly don't see what you're saying, but whatever the case you're making different claims at different times. Even in the above you say:

"I said I could satisfy his mind that there is a better chance to suggest he exists then not."

And then:

"All of which would all but satisfy a reasonable man's mind that these supernatural events could indeed be attributed to a God. "

If you do not wish to be accused of being a militant atheist then cease the hostile tone and attitude.

Those two remarks we posted in satisfactory context and do not contradict each other. They say the same thing.

This is two different claims. You need to pick one and stick with it. Either you think your evidence can convince an impartial person that God is more likely than not or you think your evidence can convince an impartial person that these things you mentioned could be attributed to God.

I do not think it will convince anyone. I think that individuals will come to their own conclusion that a God is a viable choice. I merely give then evidence that satisfies there mind that the conclusion they come to is perfectly acceptable.

No, it is not. They are the same. How on earth have you come to that conclusion?

I don't really see the point in the second one. You won't find many people who would deny that there is a possibility that a god is responsible for the big bang. I acknowledge that there is that possibility. The question is how likely it is, and what that means. It's no more likely than any other possibility. Even more importantly, even if a god is responsible for the big bang, that doesn't tell us any details about that god. You still want to make specific claims about the entity, like that there is a heaven, and he wants humans to act a certain way. That stuff is pure conjecture based on no evidence.

What other possibility do you refer to. How unlikely is it?

One step at a time. You cannot eat meat before you can drink milk. There is of course a connection between the god of the universe and the god of the bible. This is but one small, piece of evidence that proves the existence of a God.

But the first step in all of this is for you to use clear language. It's your own fault we're still discussing your claim of being able to prove God is more likely than not. You deny you ever said that, and then go on to make the claim again. If all you really want is for people to agree that the universe could have been started by a god, then all you have to do is say:

 

[Serenity7855]

You have no idea of what you are talking about. You are just playing words with your mind. You see how your mind deceive you into something you really have no knowledge about. Speculative philosophy. Nothing but speculation. Your argument does not have any pattern that is base on your belief, because you just think and argue whatever comes out of your mind.

May I add my support for this statement. I whole heartedly agree and outhouse would do himself a favour in taking it on board .

 

[Magic Man]

Convinced defined : To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action. See Synonyms at persuade.

To satisfy the mind defined: to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.); give full contentment to: The hearty meal satisfied him.

To convince is to proactively try to persuade someone that what you are saying is true.

To satisfy the mind is to allow that person to decide without persuasion or coercion.

You can keep trying, but it's not going to work. In either case, you're saying you can give them enough cause that they'll believe God is more likely than not. It doesn't matter what you want to call it; that's the concept I'm arguing against.

If you do not wish to be accused of being a militant atheist then cease the hostile tone and attitude.

If you wish to be taken seriously, realize your OP had a hostile tone and attitude, and any hostile tone or attitude I'm now displaying is because you're repeatedly trying to deny saying things you said.

Those two remarks we posted in satisfactory context and do not contradict each other. They say the same thing.

See what I mean? No, they don't say the same thing. Let me try again:

1) "there is a better chance to suggest [God] exists then not"

2) "these supernatural events could indeed be attributed to a God"

Saying something could be attributed to a being is not at all the same as saying something indicates God is more likely than not to exist. Please tell me you see this.

I do not think it will convince anyone. I think that individuals will come to their own conclusion that a God is a viable choice. I merely give then evidence that satisfies there mind that the conclusion they come to is perfectly acceptable.

You're still playing semantics. You think the information you give someone can either have them believe God is most likely to exist, or have them believe God is a possibility. Pick one and go with it.

What other possibility do you refer to. How unlikely is it?

The other possibility is that whatever caused the big bang was not a sentient being, and that there is no god.

One step at a time. You cannot eat meat before you can drink milk. There is of course a connection between the god of the universe and the god of the bible. This is but one small, piece of evidence that proves the existence of a God.

1) It's not a piece of evidence, and it doesn't prove the existence of a God. It doesn't even help make that possibility any more likely than not.

2) You jump around, though. You didn't just try to prove your first premise and then go from there. You start talking about heaven and stuff in between, too.

So, first you need to admit the inconsistent language you've been using. Until you do that and start using clear language, we'll get nowhere. After that we can discuss why the evidence you've presented isn't really evidence.

 

[outhouse]

I add my support for this statement.

That's funny, I have not seen any from you that carries any credibility.


While I have posted exactly what he worlds scientific communities state.

AND USED LINKS WITH CREDIBLE SOURCES. And kept it all in context without twisting any evidence what so ever.

 

[Serenity7855]

Go back and re-read. It's not evidence. It's not about liking it or not. It's not actual evidence. "The big bang had to have a cause" does not imply "There is a conscious being responsible for creating the universe".

Why are you not getting this.

The scientific evidence makes it clear that the universe had a beginning approximately 15 billion years ago. It is almost fact, and axiom if you like, that this is true and science has accepted it to be.

As far as I can see there are two ways in which that happened, unless someone knows of a third way. It was either "caused" or it "just appeared" without a cause.

Caused

If we believe that our natural laws applied at the point of the big bang, that is when t=0, then it creates the intrigue of what was that cause. Now you say that each possibility is equally possible, however, you provide us with no evidence of what else exists to cause such a monumental event to occur. Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being. But I am willing to learn. If I am right in my theory then I have to ask what did cause it and why was it caused? It is not unreasonable for me to come to the opinion that is was a God that caused it.

By Majic

If it is possible for something to be created from nothing then our universe could have come into existence from nothing. No cause. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. Something appeared out of nothing. How can we, as intelligent beings, come to an understanding as to how that happened? Well, we cannot understand it because it is outside of the natural laws. We do not have a clue how it would spring into being and there is no precedence. It is a gap in our scientific ability as it does not comply with any universal laws. It is a supernatural event and not a natural event, therefore, we have to conclude what actually happened could have been the result of divinity, or, some other event. What other event could it have been? I can only conclude that it was a God that did it as I cannot think of anything else.

Now, as there have only been two methods that can be considered, which one do you think it was. We only have two methods. It is either a God creating the big bang or, let's see, what else is there, oh yes, it could be a supernatural event that could be contributed to God and his gang. What do you choose, is there a choice even.

 

[Magic Man]

Why are you not getting this.

The scientific evidence makes it clear that the universe had a beginning approximately 15 billion years ago. It is almost fact, and axiom if you like, that this is true and science has accepted it to be.

As far as I can see there are two ways in which that happened, unless someone knows of a third way. It was either "caused" or it "just appeared" without a cause.

Caused

If we believe that our natural laws applied at the point of the big bang, that is when t=0, then it creates the intrigue of what was that cause. Now you say that each possibility is equally possible, however, you provide us with no evidence of what else exists to cause such a monumental event to occur. Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being. But I am willing to learn. If I am right in my theory then I have to ask what did cause it and why was it caused? It is not unreasonable for me to come to the opinion that is was a God that caused it.

By Majic

If it is possible for something to be created from nothing then our universe could have come into existence from nothing. No cause. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. Something appeared out of nothing. How can we, as intelligent beings, come to an understanding as to how that happened? Well, we cannot understand it because it is outside of the natural laws. We do not have a clue how it would spring into being and there is no precedence. It is a gap in our scientific ability as it does not comply with any universal laws. It is a supernatural event and not a natural event, therefore, we have to conclude what actually happened could have been the result of divinity, or, some other event. What other event could it have been? I can only conclude that it was a God that did it as I cannot think of anything else.

Now, as there have only been two methods that can be considered, which one do you think it was. We only have two methods. It is either a God creating the big bang or, let's see, what else is there, oh yes, it could be a supernatural event that could be contributed to God and his gang. What do you choose, is there a choice even.

The obvious other choice that I've mentioned many times on this thread is it wasn't a sentient being that started the big bang. Your "scientific evidence" only suggests the big bang had a cause. It doesn't suggest what the cause was. So, again it's not evidence for a god.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

 

[Blackdog22]

I'm saying no one is perfect. And in general his behavior has been better than some of the behavior from his opponents.

No one is perfect, still doesn't make it okay for me to go around saying that all Christians are mindless, closed minded, brainwashed bigots, and I can prove they are all wrong about the existence of God.

If that is your stance, I really don't think you would be so forgiving if it wasn't a believer making the claims and it was instead an atheist. I am sure you would be just as upset as anyone else would be, and I am sure Serenity would be right there also complaining about how rude "militant atheists" are for saying such things.... Irony

 

[Blackdog22]

You have no idea of what you are talking about. You are just playing words with your mind. You see how your mind deceive you into something you really have no knowledge about. Speculative philosophy. Nothing but speculation. Your argument does not have any pattern that is base on your belief, because you just think and argue whatever comes out of your mind.

You think without the use of your mind? You may want to rephrase that....

 

[Blackdog22]

Everything existed, as you say, to create life but the essential ingredient was nowhere to be seen. LIFE was not present. The elements were caused to live. That cause is unknown to human science. It is beyond the realms of natural laws. It is a gap in scientific knowledge. It is therefore for supernatural and evokes the question, could it have been a God. Yet another evidence that proves your entire belief system wrong and untenable.

This in no way hurts atheists belief system at all. I don't think you understand what atheism is actually about because you are so gung ho on thinking we are the anti christ and only here to argue without any reason (In which case, why are you even here? You like bad debates?).

No one has ONCE denied that it is "possible" that some supernatural, magic man, that you call God, created these things. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge the other possibilities, which completely exclude the need for a God. The atheists that you seem to hate are being open minded and agreeing that this is possible. You are simply incapable of understanding that this doesn't constitute evidence. You know what else is possible? Zeus created it all, or how about a magical fish, hell lets go with really tiny aliens with magical mind powers. Guess what? They can't all be right mate. They "could" be the cause, because I'm not arrogant enough to make claims of knowledge to something I don't know, but that doesn't mean that magical fish is a reasonable idea to base your life on, nor is it something to consider seriously, for the origins of life, without evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

No one is perfect, still doesn't make it okay for me to go around saying that all Christians are mindless, closed minded, brainwashed bigots, and I can prove they are all wrong about the existence of God.

If you read all whatever number of posts that is not Serenity's general tone in my opinion.

But whatever. At this point we have two sides with their heels dug in because that's where they are at at this time in their lives. So this thread is in an infinite loop. A merry-go-round will always stop where it started. I should and will look for a fresher thread myself.

 

[Serenity7855]

The obvious other choice that I've mentioned many times on this thread is it wasn't a sentient being that started the big bang. Your "scientific evidence" only suggests the big bang had a cause. It doesn't suggest what the cause was. So, again it's not evidence for a god.

Well if not a sentient conscious being that what else. What else is there. Is there such a thing as a being that is not sentient. Do you have an example. Does science have an example or is it as illusive as the unicorn. Being realistic your proposition is without any credibility.

You accuse me of not providing evidence for a god yet your alternative is a non-sentient being. Is that it. Which is the most probable a God or a non-sentient being?

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

You cannot make it any clearer as the idea of a being that is not sentient is inherently vague.

 

[Serenity7855]

This in no way hurts atheists belief system at all. I don't think you understand what atheism is actually about because you are so gung ho on thinking we are the anti christ and only here to argue without any reason (In which case, why are you even here? You like bad debates?).

No one has ONCE denied that it is "possible" that some supernatural, magic man, that you call God, created these things. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge the other possibilities, which completely exclude the need for a God. The atheists that you seem to hate are being open minded and agreeing that this is possible. You are simply incapable of understanding that this doesn't constitute evidence. You know what else is possible? Zeus created it all, or how about a magical fish, hell lets go with really tiny aliens with magical mind powers. Guess what? They can't all be right mate. They "could" be the cause, because I'm not arrogant enough to make claims of knowledge to something I don't know, but that doesn't mean that magical fish is a reasonable idea to base your life on, nor is it something to consider seriously, for the origins of life, without evidence.

I tell you what. You are right. It could be that Zeus created it all, or how about a magical fish, hell lets go with really tiny aliens with magical mind powers. You should take that knowledge and proclaim it to the whole world. Tell all that you meet who you think caused the universe to come into existence and I will continue to tell everyone that it could have been a God.

Apart from Zeus, magical fish, tiny aliens and God who else could have caused the universe to come into existence. You are hiding your head in the sand. Try being realistic, even if it goes against your own beliefs, and own up to yourself that the only viable being, that is known to the inhabitants of this planet, who could fill the roll of a causer of Universes is a God like being that we could call God, or Fred or George.

 

[Serenity7855]

You can keep trying, but it's not going to work. In either case, you're saying you can give them enough cause that they'll believe God is more likely than not. It doesn't matter what you want to call it; that's the concept I'm arguing against.

The concept you are arguing about is wrong. One is forced the other is not. If you cannot comprehend that fundamental difference then I am wasting my time.

If you wish to be taken seriously, realize your OP had a hostile tone and attitude, and any hostile tone or attitude I'm now displaying is because you're repeatedly trying to deny saying things you said.

I do not believe that my op had any hostile tones. It was factual and concise. The world know what atheism is all about. They are gradually being seen as that rude angry lot because that is what they are. They do try and brainwash people into their narrow minded beliefs. They did it to my brother on his death bed causing his death to be terrifying.

See what I mean? No, they don't say the same thing. Let me try again:

1) "there is a better chance to suggest [God] exists then not"

2) "these supernatural events could indeed be attributed to a God"

You have taken these two examples out of context. The first one relates to the big bang. The second one could relate to the same event it would still mean the same, however, without looking I think I said the second one about other miracles of the universe.

Saying something could be attributed to a being is not at all the same as saying something indicates God is more likely than not to exist. Please tell me you see this.

Do you see anything different?

The other possibility is that whatever caused the big bang was not a sentient being, and that there is no god.

Do you honestly believe that is an option.

1) It's not a piece of evidence, and it doesn't prove the existence of a God. It doesn't even help make that possibility any more likely than not.

It is evidence, that you disagree with it does not make it any less evidentiary. It is evidence that the big bang happened. It is evidence that the result was a universe. It is evident that it was either caused to exist or it just magically appeared. All sound and viable evidence.

2) You jump around, though. You didn't just try to prove your first premise and then go from there. You start talking about heaven and stuff in between, too.

I was drawn, by you I believe, into they religious questions. I have not jumped about. It was pointless continuing on from the big bang if the Atheists here continue to be unwilling to see the wood for the trees.

So, first you need to admit the inconsistent language you've been using. Until you do that and start using clear language, we'll get nowhere. After that we can discuss why the evidence you've presented isn't really evidence.

I do not need to admit anything. I am a realist. If I was presented with this evidence I would investigate it before I denounced it. If the claim were not credible I would then argue the point from the perspective of someone who has knowledgeably researched it. Big bang - fact, Rapid Expansion. - fact, causation or magic - fact, non-sentient beings - unrealistic twaddle.

 

[Serenity7855]

The scientific evidence makes it clear that the universe had a beginning approximately 15 billion years ago. Stephen Hawkins has been very vocal in that fact. It is almost a fact, and axiom if you like, that this is true and science has accepted it to be.

Sir Isaacs Newton has quite rightly said that there is no effect without a cause. When looking at the big bang we have to take into consideration his laws of the universe. Especially as it is entirely possible for the cause and the big bang to have taken place simultaneously - t=0

Because we know that time, matter, space and energy did not exist pre-big bang we need to take a cursory look at the possibility, no matter how ridiculous it might be, that the universe appeared without a cause.

As far as I can see there are two ways in which that happened, unless someone knows of a third way. It was either "caused" or it "just appeared" without a cause.

Caused

If we believe that our natural laws applied at the point of the big bang, that is when t=0, then it creates the intrigue of what was that cause. Now you say that each possibility is equally possible, however, you provide us with no evidence of what else exists to cause such a monumental event to occur. Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being. But I am willing to learn. If I am right in my theory then I have to ask what did cause it and why was it caused? It is not unreasonable for me to come to the opinion that is was a God that caused it.

By Majic

If it is possible for something to be created from nothing then our universe could have come into existence from nothing. No cause. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. Something appeared out of nothing. How can we, as intelligent beings, come to an understanding as to how that happened? Well, we cannot understand it because it is outside of the natural laws. We do not have a clue how it would spring into being and there is no precedence. It is a gap in our scientific ability as it does not comply with any universal laws. It is a supernatural event and not a natural event, therefore, we have to conclude what actually happened could have been the result of divinity, or, some other event. What other event could it have been? I can only conclude that it was a God that did it as I cannot think of anything else.

Now, as there have only been two methods that can be considered, which one do you think it was. We only have two methods. It is either a God creating the big bang or, let's see, what else is there, oh yes, it could be a supernatural event that could be contributed to God and his gang. What do you choose, is there a choice even.

My conclusion is that God created the universe, that he caused it to exists or magically brought it into existence is meaningless to discuss as in both cases he is the instigator of this supernatural event. It is my opinion that he created the universe to sustain life so that his spirit children could take upon themselves mortality in the flesh. So that all of mankind could be tried and tested in the flesh. To be apart of the perfect plan of salvation. We are all benefactors of this great work and wonder to bring to pass the mortality and eternal life of Man. This is our purpose and this planet was created, populated and finely tuned in order to accomplish the mind and will of a God. His evidence for existence is all around us. In evolution, abiogenesis, photosynthesis, reasoning and awareness, intelligence that far exceeds that of our closest counterparts, the big bang, rapid expansion, dark energy and matter, the higgs boson, the anthropic principle, galaxies, super novas, black holes, quantum physics, child birth and DNA. Evidence so exquisite yet discarded as here say and balderdash by those who do not recognise their origins or destinations. A man with an open mind, void of bigotry and bias, being free of the destructive influence of pride and self righteousness, would look at this evidence objectively and with an open mind having a desire to know that which is true. He would study it out in his mind and he would come to a conclusion that there is something more then us in control of our destiny. Of course there are those who think that the know better then God or anybody who claims his existence and out of their own misery will bring those fence sitters into the throng of activist type atheism.

 

[outhouse]

it could have been a God.

.

It could have been yellow ducky.

I imagine he does a lot of things

 

[outhouse]

Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being

.

It doesn't surprise me :areyoucra

Open your mind then to REAL science instead of religion.


Because we have a clear track record of people attributing what they don't know to mythology.


Your riding the god of the gaps train. WOO WOO!! chug a chug a chug a chug a

 

[Serenity7855]

The scientific evidence makes it clear that the universe had a beginning approximately 15 billion years ago. Stephen Hawkins has been very vocal in that fact. It is almost a fact, and axiom if you like, that this is true and science has accepted it to be.

Sir Isaacs Newton has quite rightly said that there is no effect without a cause. When looking at the big bang we have to take into consideration his laws of the universe. Especially as it is entirely possible for the cause and the big bang to have taken place simultaneously - t=0

Because we know that time, matter, space and energy did not exist pre-big bang we need to take a cursory look at the possibility, no matter how ridiculous it might be, that the universe appeared without a cause.

As far as I can see there are two ways in which that happened, unless someone knows of a third way. It was either "caused" or it "just appeared" without a cause.

Caused

If we believe that our natural laws applied at the point of the big bang, that is when t=0, then it creates the intrigue of what was that cause. Now you say that each possibility is equally possible, however, you provide us with no evidence of what else exists to cause such a monumental event to occur. Personally I can not think of a single event that would cause the big bang other then by the power of a superior conscious being. But I am willing to learn. If I am right in my theory then I have to ask what did cause it and why was it caused? It is not unreasonable for me to come to the opinion that is was a God that caused it.

By Majic

If it is possible for something to be created from nothing then our universe could have come into existence from nothing. No cause. Let us assume for a moment that that is true. Something appeared out of nothing. How can we, as intelligent beings, come to an understanding as to how that happened? Well, we cannot understand it because it is outside of the natural laws. We do not have a clue how it would spring into being and there is no precedence. It is a gap in our scientific ability as it does not comply with any universal laws. It is a supernatural event and not a natural event, therefore, we have to conclude what actually happened could have been the result of divinity, or, some other event. What other event could it have been? I can only conclude that it was a God that did it as I cannot think of anything else.

Now, as there have only been two methods that can be considered, which one do you think it was. We only have two methods. It is either a God creating the big bang or, let's see, what else is there, oh yes, it could be a supernatural event that could be contributed to God and his gang. What do you choose, is there a choice even.

My conclusion is that God created the universe, that he caused it to exists or magically brought it into existence is meaningless to discuss as in both cases he is the instigator of this supernatural event. It is my opinion that he created the universe to sustain life so that his spirit children could take upon themselves mortality in the flesh. So that all of mankind could be tried and tested in the flesh. To be apart of the perfect plan of salvation. We are all benefactors of this great work and wonder to bring to pass the mortality and eternal life of Man. This is our purpose and this planet was created, populated and finely tuned in order to accomplish the mind and will of a God. His evidence for existence is all around us. In evolution, abiogenesis, photosynthesis, reasoning and awareness, intelligence that far exceeds that of our closest counterparts, the big bang, rapid expansion, dark energy and matter, the higgs boson, the anthropic principle, galaxies, super novas, black holes, quantum physics, child birth and DNA. Evidence so exquisite yet discarded as here say and balderdash by those who do not recognise their origins or destinations. A man with an open mind, void of bigotry and bias, being free of the destructive influence of pride and self righteousness, would look at this evidence objectively and with an open mind having a desire to know that which is true. He would study it out in his mind and he would come to a conclusion that there is something more then us in control of our destiny. Of course there are those who think that the know better then God or anybody who claims his existence and out of their own misery will bring those fence sitters into the throng of activist type atheism.

I hate no man but I practice Gods commandment to love all.

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another

I just do it wearing the armour of God.

Ephesians 6
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What I meant is, your gods......

ah, my apologies, I misunderstood where you were going with that.
I'm am agnostic atheist, no gods to speak of, why do you ask, or, why is that relevant?