You are guilty of a logical fallacy (that of Negative Proof).
The burden of proof is not on science to prove that God/Zeus/Xenu DOES NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that God/Zeus/Xenu DOES exist.
Please rent the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", or otherwise research that specific course of events.
I would really like to know if it changes your thinking at all.
Regards,
God is love.
Love is never having to say you're sorry.
The world is growing more uncivil by the day.
Ergo, proof of God's existence is growing daily.
The burden of proof is not on science to prove that God/Zeus/Xenu DOES NOT exist.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that God/Zeus/Xenu DOES exist.
Ditto.
Hello, I'm not here to prove that God exists. I'm here on this thread to show that atheists state that God does not exist, and that they base their reasoning on science, yet science has not even proved one of the unknowns. The primary unknowns are these: 1.) Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Atheists have no idea. 2.) Did a Supreme Being create this matter? Atheists really have no idea, yet say anyway that He didn't. 3.) If a Supreme Being did not create this matter, how then did it come into being? Yet again, atheists have no idea. Atheists have no idea about these three, yet they unilaterally declare that God does not exist. Why would an atheist choose one unknown and yet dismiss another unknown? It is unknown if atheism is true or if creationism is true, so why would atheists take a position that creationism is not true?