Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

The commandment's in themselves are irrelevant to an atheist, however human morality takes care of everything other than bowing to a bronze age myth. Like no killing, no stealing, no raping (oops, the bible is fine with raping), no keeping slaves (ah right another right mess the bible got you into), lying (ive rarely met a christisan who a not ok with lying), treating people with the respect they deserve (another Christian failing)

And another wowsie, of course atheist morality is not biblical. Do you really think the Bible is relevant to an atheist?

You got me there, i loath the ira (christian) who chopped off my aunt's arm in front of my eyes and left me partially blind and in constant pain.
I loath the christians who beat me to the ground then tried (and thankfully failed) to push my twins pushchair in front of a moving bus.
Other than that i have no real enemies to speak of. Tell me, honstly, if someone mutilated a relative of yours or tried to kill your children would you forgive them?

Ahh the old atheist in foxholes lie, how very Christian of you. Most certainly, percentage wise an atheist is just as likely to give up their life to save another as anyone else. And you say you know many atheists, are you breaking none of your commandments here? Now be honest.

And charity? Are you sure you want to go there? Because there are numerous reports that prove you wrong.

Muslims and Christians less generous than atheists, study finds
Atheists are the most generous—even without heavenly reward!
Atheist Charities Are More Generous than Religious Charities - Thaumaturgical

And from my own experience, i can pretty much guarantee that i have donated more to charity since i started earning a wage than you could earn in a lifetime.

I don't understand this line of argument, it seems self-defeating, please allow me to explain:

1. You said atheists are more moral than many Christians
2. I said, being Christian, my morality is Bible-based, which shows that atheists are far more immoral than Christ-worshipers, per the same
3. You reply includes a) I don't care what you subjectively believe about morality from the Bible because b) my subjective morality shows atheists are better

Now, I would be compelled to point out that since we both have subjective moral ideas, that you feel X is moral while I use a book. Then, when you ask me to prove God exists, I say I feel He exists; His existence is self-evident to me. You deny this is so, while holding the morality you feel, a morality you find self-evident.

Therefore, you hold a double standard.

Of course, you also hold a double standard re: charity. Jesus praised the poor person who gave all they had. You don't know what percentage of income I give.

 

[Audie]

No! I'd destroy Heaven if I went there today, because I err.

But, having trusted in Christ, I will be transformed when He comes to separate persons to Heaven and Hell, so that I can be fit to live in a utopia.

Your very question begs the question, "You asked if I'm morally perfect because you knew I'm not. Therefore, you must believe all persons are morally imperfect, and it would be logical to infer we need moral redemption, therefore, yes?"

Ofcourse you are not perfect, but lo and many a "christian"will claim to be without sin. Thought you might be one of those varmints.

Ok so you will be magically transformed to perfection.

What follows your "therefore" is kind of weird, it may be how you think, but has zero to do with me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is nothing to avoid there. That is a bogus concept. You cannot complain about justice, as so many Christians do when comparing their beliefs to those that reject their myth. You merely do not wish to admit that you worship an evil god.

Remember that in your myth it is your god's fault that man is imperfect. He screwed up and he blames his creation. that once again makes your god immoral.

I will certainly admit to worshiping an evil God (!), but you should understand that we both hold subjective moral views of what good and evil are. Of course, you will reject my saying "God exists, He is self-evident in my life," while insisting my God is evil simply because "He doesn't align with the moral facts I find self-evident." You have confused clear biblical-derived truths like "we hold certain truths self-evident, that we are endowed by a Creator," with "my self-evident trumps your self-evident," which is quite a heavy double standard to carry.

For example, your double standard relates to things like saying the Bible condones rape (which it doesn't in my understanding of the Bible), while never quite being able to say why rape is wrong other than that "hurting other people must be wrong on a self-evident basis", than "shoring up" your position with some pseudo-theological evolutionary position, "Humans are like ants and bees and live for their collective good, so rape isn't okay, like it is for many in the animal and insect kingdoms".

Uh-huh.

 

[Audie]

I don't understand this line of argument, it seems self-defeating, please allow me to explain:

1. You said atheists are more moral than many Christians
2. I said, being Christian, my morality is Bible-based, which shows that atheists are far more immoral than Christ-worshipers, per the same
3. You reply includes a) I don't care what you subjectively believe about morality from the Bible because b) my subjective morality shows atheists are better

Now, I would be compelled to point out that since we both have subjective moral ideas, that you feel X is moral while I use a book. Then, when you ask me to prove God exists, I say I feel He exists; His existence is self-evident to me. You deny this is so, while holding the morality you feel, a morality you find self-evident.

Therefore, you hold a double standard.

Of course, you also hold a double standard re: charity. Jesus praised the poor person who gave all they had. You don't know what percentage of income I give.

Objectively, atheists in the USA are better educated, have a lower divorce rate and stay out of jail better than the "christians". Probably some other metrics would show the same pattern.

Education is of course not about morality, but withal, the atheists seem to show more class.

You of course would not know how much I've given
to charity, but I would be absolutely astonished if it were even a tenth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think I said that.
It was the comparison between a caring non-believer and a serial murderer or paedophile and their chances of getting into heaven. There was more chance of a repentant paedophile who had found god than a caring person.

I understand your comparison, however, you have apparently decided that caring people will not destroy a utopia with their moral imperfection, and also that non-repentant paedophiles should be in Hell, not Heaven. Is that correct?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hindsight makes it easier to work backwards to make things fit the story rather than actually predicting the date beforehand, as you originally had claimed about the Bible but which turned out to be false.

What's anti-Semitic about pointing out that people wanted something to happen, and so worked to make it happen? Just a sad attempt at name calling and deflection. I never once suggested that Jews wanted or deserved to suffer. Gimme a break.

If that's true, you are saying the 1948 prophecy fulfillment was self-fulfillment, but other vital prophecies, like the Jews being in diaspora in many countries while persecuted in ALL and each of those countries was NOT self-fulfillment, meaning you acknowledge some Bible prophecies but not others. Well, that's a start!

PS. Even if 1948 was self-fulfilled (I don't think so), it would still be extraordinary, even unique in human history, for the Bible to have made that prediction 2,500 years prior, including the intact nature of world Jewry without a country but being separate from Gentiles, and wanting their former country returned for 2,500 years, than getting one just after half the race is killed by Nazis and Nazi collaborators!

No, Bible prophecy still kicks a lot of butt!

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you wish to believe this about the constitution, I don't care. You are wrong, and a victim of selective cherry-picking and self-serving and special interpretation. I could use up a lot of space deputing your claims with facts. But this has nothing to do with the points I raised about religions beliefs, myths, superstitions, and fairy tales. And, how do you challenge the laws made by a supernatural all powerful entity? How? Don

There is nothing wrong with challenging the laws made by God, just as there's nothing wrong with challenging (and amending as needed) the Constitution. Born agains are in awe of God, but need not be terrified by God, and certainly not by God's Law.

God's Law is mostly for sinners, not believers.

Go ahead and challenge God's Law or the Constitution or both. But start intelligently by acknowledging some of their perfections! Over 100 countries have copied many facets of America's Constitution because it's good. God's Law is good, even perfect.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't understand:

1. The Bible gives prophetic dates
2. We confirm the first date of 537 BCE via archaeology and history (secular)
3. We confirm Israel's date of 1948 CE by looking at textbooks or newspapers/microfiche

We have thus used two secular sources to affirm the truth of Bible prophecy.

Your supporting source is a website called "End-Times-Bible-Prophecy"... Does it really surprise anyone that their "research" matches their conclusion?

The initial problem still exists. It still hinges on the same flaw - you're starting with your conclusion, supporting it a number of zany ways, and then saying "AHA! The Bible predicted this specific event just as I said it would!"

Think I'm just being cantankerous?

Your quote, showing that you don't see the problem...
"I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948..."
-BilliardsBall

"Without an exact starting date, it's more accurate to count backward 907,200 days from the day of Israel's restoration. Israel declared its status as an independent nation on May 14, 1948."
-End-Times-Biblical-Prophecy

They are, literally, beginning with their conclusion and then supporting it as needed. That's not how research works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that's true, you are saying the 1948 prophecy fulfillment was self-fulfillment, but other vital prophecies, like the Jews being in diaspora in many countries while persecuted in ALL and each of those countries was NOT self-fulfillment, meaning you acknowledge some Bible prophecies but not others. Well, that's a start!

Wow, you really know how to twist peoples' words around.

That people who were being persecuted predicted that they would continue to be persecuted isn't all that surprising to me.

PS. Even if 1948 was self-fulfilled (I don't think so), it would still be extraordinary, even unique in human history, for the Bible to have made that prediction 2,500 years prior, including the intact nature of world Jewry without a country but being separate from Gentiles, and wanting their former country returned for 2,500 years, than getting one just after half the race is killed by Nazis and Nazi collaborators!

No, Bible prophecy still kicks a lot of butt!

Of course it was self-fulfilled. Human beings created the nation of Israel as we now know it. There was no magic involved and I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that God had a hand in it. I don't think it's all that shocking that someone predicted something they wanted to happen, like in my sandwich example.

But let's say that this was a prophecy that was actually predicted to a "T" and then fulfilled to a "T." At most, that would demonstrate that some person somewhere at some time was able to predict one thing that was going to happen. It doesn't provide an explanation as to how that person was able to do it. And it doesn't get you to "he was able to predict the future because God exists and provided him with the details."

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is nothing wrong with challenging the laws made by God, just as there's nothing wrong with challenging (and amending as needed) the Constitution. Born agains are in awe of God, but need not be terrified by God, and certainly not by God's Law.

God's Law is mostly for sinners, not believers.

Go ahead and challenge God's Law or the Constitution or both. But start intelligently by acknowledging some of their perfections! Over 100 countries have copied many facets of America's Constitution because it's good. God's Law is good, even perfect.

I think the American Constitution is a work of art.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible or "God's Law."

P.S. I don't see how telling people, "it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they don't die within a day or two" is anything close to perfection.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your supporting source is a website called "End-Times-Bible-Prophecy"... Does it really surprise anyone that their "research" matches their conclusion?

The initial problem still exists. It still hinges on the same flaw - you're starting with your conclusion, supporting it a number of zany ways, and then saying "AHA! The Bible predicted this specific event just as I said it would!"

Think I'm just being cantankerous?

Your quote, showing that you don't see the problem...
"I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948..."
-BilliardsBall

"Without an exact starting date, it's more accurate to count backward 907,200 days from the day of Israel's restoration. Israel declared its status as an independent nation on May 14, 1948."
-End-Times-Biblical-Prophecy

They are, literally, beginning with their conclusion and then supporting it as needed. That's not how research works.

I tried to point this out. You've said it much better than I did.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheists are not God haters.

Correct. Atheists don't believe in gods, therefore cannot hate them.

They can, however, have opinions about the character attributed a god, especially when that character is offered as a moral exemplar..

The benefits have outweighed the liabilities many times over for me. So why would I even think about giving it up?

That's more or less the case I make regarding my secular humanism. When you've found a worldview which works - meets one's needs and provides an effective map for navigating life, why change it?

What is atheism to you? To me, atheism is to not believe that a deity exists. No divine. no creator, no supreme being.

Atheism is the no answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods and nothing more, just as theism is the yes answer to that same question.

One needn't offer an opinion about the existence of gods apart from the fact that one has not been convinced they exist. I cannot comment on whether the universe has a creator other than to say that none is apparent and it may well be that none is needed to account for our reality.

 

[Audie]

Wow, you really know how to twist peoples' words around.

That people who were being persecuted predicted that they would continue to be persecuted isn't all that surprising to me.


Of course it was self-fulfilled. Human beings created the nation of Israel as we now know it. There was no magic involved and I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that God had a hand in it. I don't think it's all that shocking that someone predicted something they wanted to happen, like in my sandwich example.

But let's say that this was a prophecy that was actually predicted to a "T" and then fulfilled to a "T." At most, that would demonstrate that some person somewhere at some time was able to predict one thing that was going to happen. It doesn't provide an explanation as to how that person was able to do it. And it doesn't get you to "he was able to predict the future because God exists and provided him with the details."

I wonder if he really twists words intentionally. May be an incapacity to see
another's pov, so that all must be rephrased into a familiar framework.

Belief in special access to arcane knowledge may amplify same.


If bible prophecy were all of the kick a.. that it is thought by some to be, it
would be obvious to all, and would take no special-access privileges to see it.

Then too, it is more than a little contradictory, for lo, a plain prophecy
fulfilled so much later would be proof of, yes, god.

And yet we see that proof of god is simply not to be had; "god"
is most disinclined to show it/her/himself.

Why?

Now some of us think it is the same reason we dont see Godzilla show
himself, not yet any other such.

Others, who believe that their god exists that god will never "prove" himself to the living What, after all, is the meaning or value of faith, if god were to
show up, 50,000 ft tall, and tell people they better do right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The anti-Semitism comes up when someone says, "Jews in the land in 1948 is self-fulfilled," as if we wanted to be in diaspora and persecution for 2,000 years to self-fulfill the prophecy! There are also prophecies of being persecuted in diaspora. Are THOSE self-fulfilled? To say so is very anti-Semitic.

It is not anti-Semitic to say that biblical prophecy is not convincing. To be anti-Semitic, a comment needs to disparage Jews.

We've previously discussed the criteria for high quality prophecy. Among other things, high quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. The scriptures from Leviticus and Ezekiel (if I recall correctly) don't rise to that level. If they had, you would have been able to predict the year 1948 from them before 1948. The fact that somebody had to search the entire Bible for passages that could be massaged into generating the result of 1948 disqualifies it as predicting that date.

Also to be high quality, the prophecy needs to predict something unexpected, unlikely or unique, and something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed.

Contrast biblical prophecy with scientific prophecy, which is high quality. Consider the predictions made about the Higgs boson, something which could not have been easily guessed, is unique, and which included specific predictions about the energy level which would be needed to find it, and what its charge, spin, and parity would be.

Or consider the prediction that the gravity of the sun would bend distant starlight grazing past its edge would distort the apparent location of the originating star by a specific amount in a specific direction, something also unexpected and confirmed in detail.

It is self-evident to me I exist. It is self-evident to me God exists. I don't know how you can say you can judge what I think and feel internally, from afar.

That is our job. Either you're seeing something that isn't there, or we're not seeing something that is. We should decide which it is.

I have a reliable method for that, and it tells me that the person claiming to see or otherwise experience God is experiencing his own mind. I've shared this with you before:

Spoiler: the reliable method

How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was me that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical to me and are thus indistinguishable. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people that tell me about God, and why I don't believe them. I think that they are telling the truth as they understand it, but they are only experiencing their own minds and projecting some of its content onto external reality.

the rights of the Declaration start with "created . . . God . . . inalienable . . . "

Are you implying that our rights come from God? If God has always been around, why did it take so many centuries to obtain these rights? Where were they in the Middle Ages? Why weren't they in the Bible? Why do so many people still not have these rights? Why did they have to be enumerated by men, fought for by men, defended by men, enforced by men, interpreted by men, and amended by men? What part did a god play in any of that?

I have a pretty good idea why God references made it into a declaration to rebel against the king. Imagine trying to manufacture the support for a revolution from Bible believing people whose Bibles contain this passage:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

 

[Altfish]

I understand your comparison, however, you have apparently decided that caring people will not destroy a utopia with their moral imperfection, and also that non-repentant paedophiles should be in Hell, not Heaven. Is that correct?

I think you are assuming too much from someone who does not believe in heaven or hell.
But paedophiles repented or not should not get a pass to what you describe as utopia; having said that hell is far too bad for anyone however heinous their crimes

 

[ChristineM]

I don't understand this line of argument, it seems self-defeating, please allow me to explain:

1. You said atheists are more moral than many Christians
2. I said, being Christian, my morality is Bible-based, which shows that atheists are far more immoral than Christ-worshipers, per the same
3. You reply includes a) I don't care what you subjectively believe about morality from the Bible because b) my subjective morality shows atheists are better

Now, I would be compelled to point out that since we both have subjective moral ideas, that you feel X is moral while I use a book. Then, when you ask me to prove God exists, I say I feel He exists; His existence is self-evident to me. You deny this is so, while holding the morality you feel, a morality you find self-evident.

Therefore, you hold a double standard.

Of course, you also hold a double standard re: charity. Jesus praised the poor person who gave all they had. You don't know what percentage of income I give.

The bible is not a basis for morality, morality is a human trait, not a Christian trait. Christianity in millennia past have hijacked morality, modified the concept to suit themselves and exclude everyone who does not have a god on their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong. Is it moral to steal a way of life, the source of civilisation and deny it to those you dont like?

Without human morality civilisation would not exist, humans would be just another group of plains animals alone and struggling for existence.

Re your number 2, i did not say atheist were more immoral than christian, those are words twisted words, what i said was that in my experience atheists tend to be more moral than Christians. How moral does that make you to distort another's words just to score god points? This is a point i have highlighted before with prison population statistics.

Re your number 3, you know those are not words i used, you have fabricated them to suit your own sensibilities. Thus showing you fail the morality of being honest test.

Not doing so well at this Christian morality are you?

Also to me, morality is not subjective, they are objective mores and way of life.

I deny god or gods for a very good objective reason, there is no physical evidence of gods and never has been. The bible says your god committed genocide and child murder, he condones mass murder, theft, slavery, rape and subjugation, is this a good guide to moral superiority? Is demanding that i ditch my morality and adopt the morality of a genocidal god a moral thing to do?

So you say that not following the word of a genocidal god means i have double standards??? How do you figure that projection?

It doesn't matter what proportion of your income you gave to charity, you brought up charity and i blew your claim out of the water with factual reports. So be honest, have you actually donated your entire wealth to charity as JC suggested.... Which begs the question how did you pay for your computing device and internet connections. Do i sense double standards here?

 

[Phantasman]

Correct. Atheists don't believe in gods, therefore cannot hate them.

They can, however, have opinions about the character attributed a god, especially when that character is offered as a moral exemplar..



That's more or less the case I make regarding my secular humanism. When you've found a worldview which works - meets one's needs and provides an effective map for navigating life, why change it?



Atheism is the no answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods and nothing more, just as theism is the yes answer to that same question.

One needn't offer an opinion about the existence of gods apart from the fact that one has not been convinced they exist. I cannot comment on whether the universe has a creator other than to say that none is apparent and it may well be that none is needed to account for our reality.

I agree. Faith is to believe in what's not seen. If one see's a Big Bang, it's still faith (since they didn't actually see it,) right?

I can respect that view. And I won't "argue" it because I can show no proof of my faith either.

Even in spiritual God, I have faith differently than orthodox faith. God the Father did not create this Aeon (physical universe). If he is perfect, how could he create imperfection? He didn't create the "devil, (Satan) either. To what end?

I can see why the orthodox view is questioned, and not followed, because I am there as well. But my own spiritual seeking has produced a much more believable truth that answers much of what the orthodox (catholic Bible) view cannot.

Just as I know that we see opposites (dark and light, right and left, good and bad), I know that there is corporeal and incorporeal, spirit and physical, God and not God).

But there has to be a monarchy for all that exists. My faith is just that it's Father (God).

 

[jonathan180iq]

I tried to point this out. You've said it much better than I did.

The Bible prophesised my birth...

Don't believe me?
Just start with my date of birth and count backwards any number of days until you run into any historical Biblical passage of my choosing and Voila! I am he who was spoken of before.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree. Faith is to believe in what's not seen. If one see's a Big Bang, it's still faith (since they didn't actually see it,) right?

We're not quite in agreement.

By faith, I mean unjustified belief. I realize that justified belief is also called faith, as when somebody says that they have faith that their car will start the next time they need it to just as it did the last two hundred times it was tested. To avoid confusion, I don't use the word faith to refer to justified belief.

So faith - unjustified belief - does not mean belief in the unseen since justified belief in the unseen exists. I'll illustrate:

I believe that you were conceived by your parents, that you gestated in your mother's womb, eventually were born, took a first breath, and some years later learned to read and write English. I didn't witness any of that (and neither did you except perhaps the later stuff), yet we are both pretty certain that it happened, and justifiably so. We use the evidence available today to do that. That's how we know about the past - using the present. Even our memories of the past are present memories of it.

Is it possible that you are just software that convincingly imitates a human being? Yes, but I am still justified in believing that you are much more likely to be another person sitting somewhere with the history I outlined generating RF posts in the usual manner..

Regarding the Big Bang, one can be reasonably certain that the universe began expanding from a highly condensed state some 13.8 billions years ago in the manner described by the Standard Model based on what is still observable today. The reason that we can say with confidence that the theory is correct in the main is the two high quality, confirmed prophesies generated by the theory - Big Bang nucleosynthesis ratios and the Cosmic Microwave Background. You can't make highly specific and previously unexpected predictions like that without a correct understanding of what's what.

So no, one doesn't have to have faith to believe the Big Bang occurred. Nor does he have to witness it.

I'm sure that you would agree that to be able to predict the precise time of a solar eclipse and how it will appear from various viewing locations as the eclipse evolves from start to finish, one must have a correct theory of planetary motion. And if that same theory tells you that a solar eclipse occurred some specific time in the past before there were witnesses that could tell us about it, it's a good bet that it did.

 

[Etritonakin]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Life is actually composed of the lifeless. It is by arrangement of the lifeless.
Or.... Everything is alive -but not necessarily yet in a complex arrangement.

On a small scale -considering only the earth and a short amount of time -life comes only from life.

On an overall scale -or even considering the scripture which states that man is made of the dust of the ground -earthly life is a system made from what might be considered inanimate. However, the "activity" of those inanimate components makes the complex system possible.

Even though a rock -or a piece of garbage -may seem inanimate, it is actually very active.

The universe is a bunch of inanimate stuff -and from that stuff physical life was made. Each system which makes up our overall system was made by previous interactions, and those systems came together by interaction to make up our overall system. That is true whether God created us or not -and we do not know exactly how God might have gone about creating us.

It is not completely impossible for physical life to spring from a "garbage heap" with the correct stuff and providing the necessary processes -because the active building blocks of life need only be arranged at this point -because they already exist as such due to the origin of the universe, elements, etc..

If the correct stuff is there, however, life becomes a certainty if there is intent to cause life to exist from those materials. Rather than waiting for time and chance, materials can be arranged by intended processes.

Regardless of whether we believe God created physical life or not, that which makes life possible has "always" existed. The only question is at which points intent was involved.

Physical life, the universe, the periodic table of elements, do indicate a pre-existing intelligence, but that intelligence -"God" -though certainly mysterious -would not be a "complete" mystery -would be understandable, of a specific nature, completely and perfectly logical, etc. -though far beyond us at present.

Though physical life indicates a pre-existing intelligence, the existence of that intelligence must be explainable somehow.

Ironically, we do not know if that which is believed about the origin of physical life by atheists and the like is not MORE true about God.