Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 8 years ago

Christians why do you dislike the fact that atheists want proof (evidence of the christian gods existence)?

Just curious. And I am sorry but life itself is not proof of a deity.

12 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Not just the christian god,any god with proof will do.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Sara
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    It is tiresome for atheists to keep posting the same question.

    Atheists have no proof that a god does not exist. There is no physical sign or experiment that can prove such a claim. Science will not go there; the existence of God, the soul, or the afterlife has no place in science.

    Spiritual people have no need to prove God's existence to anyone else because they have had personal, individual proof given to them by the grace of God, and they know that short of this happening to the doubters, there is nothing that can be held out as physical proof to be examined.

    So yes, we're enormously tired of atheists wanting physical proof of a non-material, transcendent Force of Divinity.

    If they are that interested in God, let them do the work necessary to fashion a spiritual life, the meditation, prayer, purity of morals, and abiding compassion. A true seeker does not harm any living thing by thought, word or deed. Are we there yet?

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Really? because atheist use that as an excuse, You see they won't accept any proof because of a Bias presupposition, it's like this You see an atheist presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to then to show His existence, they would interpret it in a manner consistent with their presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, they would say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, they would say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to then since their presuppositions won't allow it.

    Their presupposition cannot allow them to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, their presupposition would force them to interpret the facts consistently with their presupposition and they would not be able to see the proof.

    Source(s): TR
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    So permit's get this at present, there's a predicament because of the fact somebody accessible says there is consistent along with his very own common? it is rather what it looks like. Exodus 32:26-29 would not advise homicide because it would not enable human beings to kill on each occasion they pick. human beings have been killed because of the fact they worshipped an idol. it is no longer the main comforting tale to place it mildly, regardless of the incontrovertible fact that it does teach the seriousness of sin. as a rely of reality God might have wiped out the full bunch of Israelites for his or her sin. i'm uncertain the thank you to respond to this, as there is not any GMD previous what somebody dreamed up.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    I don't mind that. I mind that some people call me an idiot when I know something they happen to not know yet (and I'm probably a lot more educated than they). They often seem really irrational, angry, and inconsistent, so it's just annoying or creepy in general that there are people like that; their hate is palpable. Yet Christ died for all who accept Him, even those who currently spit on Him. Pretty amazing stuff, and so many around here are simply the complete opposite of that unselfishness and virtue.

    "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8).

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    The Bible (which I know most atheist dislike) says it best at Psalm 10:4: The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; All his ideas are: “There is no God.” It is because most atheists have closed their minds to even the possibility of God. They make no sincere open-minded search, even dismissing the miracle of life as no proof. The Bible also says at Acts 17:27, 28 that if we might grope for him we will find him because he is not far off from us.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Prism
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Dislike is your word.Ours is puzzlement.

    As they say in the scientific method ,if it works it must be right.

    This forum and everyone on it couldnt exist without the author of Life per se.

    Do you have contrary evidence ?

    Bring it on !

    Source(s): Prophetos input is endorsed so many times by supremely well qualified scientists . Take up " The God Code" book which explains the corelation of DNA alphabet with the most ancient living language today. Hebrew. There is only one letter in the human genome that is different from the Hebrew name for the divine Author. We are told that we are made in the image of God in terms of the double Helix programme of humans.It is the most ingenious formula known to mankind and one which no scientist can propose or replicate any genetic cause other than Omnipotent Design of Earth sciences.Hebrew is alphabetically formed of 22 consonants and the only language on earth that retains practically identical meaning now as it did 3,000 years ago.
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Because you're just setting up a strawman argument when you demand proof of a magical sky fairy. Jesus is the Lord, and real historians unanimously agree that he was a real person baptized by John, crucified by Pilate, and worshiped as God.

    Source(s): History
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    It's difficult to prove.

    Their hearts are already full and they have no room for God. But in a way, they are not wrong in asking for proof. God also did not speak to them or show them His power. He could also send them dreams, but He doesn't.

    You can view this video of how a woman was healed of a tumor in her womb.

    Youtube thumbnail

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • After all, nobody has proof of a God, religious worshipers just believe that God/s exist, they don't know if he/she does or not

    Edit: Honestly, I get thumbed down for posting a neutral side in the argument...

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

    Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.

    Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

    What do you think? All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.

    Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.


    The probability of DNA forming by chance will be discussed in section 3, “Where Did the Instructions Come From?”

    Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

    Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.


    ▪ Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

    Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

    ▪ Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

    Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

    ▪ Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

    Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

    RNA 1 is required to make proteins 2, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. How could either one arise by chance, let alone both? Ribosomes 3 will be discussed in section 2.

    If the creation of complex molecules in the laboratory requires the skill of a scientist, could the far more complex molecules in a cell really arise by chance?

    Source(s): Life itself.
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.