: : You've challenged us to prove the existence of God apart from belief. I'll reverse the challenge to you or to anyone else: Without using faith or testimony, prove that atoms exist.: Hiroshima and Nagasaki really were destroyed. If atoms did not exist, and they did not have the properties that we ascribe to them, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be standing. They are not. The most reasonable explanation is that atoms have the properties (including existence) that we have ascribed to them. God, on the other hand, has maintained a steadfast refusal to interfere with the world or leave any traces of his existence. The challenge stands.
: -Floyd
I'm not saying that what functions as an atom may not exist. My point was that what actually exists may one day be recognized as something different.
Stating that God has steadfastly refused to interfere with the world or leave any traces of His existence appears to be a statement of uneducated unbelief.
You don't have to search the history books very far to find out that God has indeed interfered -- from Creation right down to modern history. You may choose not to believe, and not all things men have done in the name of God have been godly nor right, but I thing evidence is most definitely and most obviously there. Study the history of just the Jewish people and you'll see that.
As far as physical evidence for you and for Gideon, another analogy: If you were walking through the woods and came upon a watch, would you assume that it happened to be put together by chance, or that it was made by a watchmaker? Obviously, it was designed and made.
Why then, when looking at something much more complex like cells, atoms, etc., do so many assume they all happened by merely random chance? It doesn't make sense to me.
