Sentences with phrase «evidence about the existence»

Yes, masses and masses and masses of contemporary, verifiable evidence about his existence - compare that to ZERO contemporary evidence that Jesus existed.

In short, Strategy 2 generates unambiguous evidence about the existence of peer effects, but the range of estimates is somewhat wide: 0.10 to 0.55 points is a plausible summary of the range, given the various results and known biases.

While there is ample evidence about the existence of a strong relation between parent's economic situation and numerous health and social outcomes, less is known about the operating mechanisms.

Not exact matches

America's close ally Israel accused Iran this week of «brazenly lying» about its nuclear capabilities, and Israeli sources have said new evidence provides «proof of the very existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.»

I am myself agnostic about the existence of ghosts, being restrained from my preferred disbelief by the weight of evidence.

Religion is mostly about belief in the supernatural, and evidence of the natural can not be used to support the accuracy / existence of the supernatural.

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

blastoff - if one can show with evidence that the concept of God from the Torah was created by a human and with evidence shows how, where, when and why... it has everything to do with the topic about the existence of God.

I feel sorry for you, how about giving us just one bit of evidence to support the existence of your god and the divinity of jesus.

[5] Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using docu mentary and other evidence, although most hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value

[5] Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence, although most hold that much of the material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value

What if we factor in the evidence for the existence of God, the Messianic claims Jesus made about himself, how his resurrection would act as the vindication of them, and a host of other details?

To say there is no evidence for the real existence of the most discussed figure in history denies the unique manner in which Christianity came about (a claim that God came in the flesh conveyed with real life details, etc).

The prolific Jesuit scholar, Fr James Schall, now in his eighties, has given us this book about the pleasure of knowing the truth of things, in particular the delight of discovering coherence from reflecting upon diverse aspects of existence, of realising that all sorts of «scraps of evidence» point to the fact that only Christianity provides an adequate account of our existence.

We can know and be sure about God's existence from the evidence of creation, but to know God personally and grow in relationship with our creator, we need the gift of faith given to us in Jesus Christ through the Church.

Stories about a magical hero are not evidence of the existence of a non magical person.

Among atheists it is pretty common to acknowledge not to have knowledge about the existence of gods, but in light of the complete and utter lack of any evidence in favor of their existence, not believe they exist.

Archaeology give undeniable evidence that the Bible is the most trustworthy document of antiquity and there is nothing even remotely close to it, and it gives great evidence to the existence of Jesus as well as some of the Bible's claims about Him.

God has given us much evidence of His existence: how about the intricacies of how the human body works - can you really believe that happened without a master plan; what about the beauty of nature - can we really think that that just happened; what about the testimony of millions throughout the ages including Scientists attempting to disprove God, that point to things beyond their comprehension or doing.

Start educating yourself, read about evolution and the extensive evidence of it's existence.

Do you pray to Santa Claus or the Eater Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, there is about as much evidence for their existence as for the existence of god.

The most they'll say about gnosticism is that the lack of evidence makes the existence of any gods highly improbable.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

What evidence do you know about that I do not, that proves the existence of God.

An agnostic atheist would take the stance that although they currently don't believe in God and don't think there is any evidence about such an existence, they don't completely rule out the possibility of God because they don't think the question is fully knowable.

I do, of course, believe that all the evidence points to God's existence (even sin and evil), but I am not about to get into all of that right now.

e.g. pop up tomorrow with substantiated evidence supporting the existence of your deity and we'll have an open, frank, and sincere discussion about it.

I corrected you both times, that I never made a claim about the existence of minds or evidence (though isn't it blatantly obvious to you, me, and pretty much everyone, that they do exist?).

Richard Dawkins as a stupid man and greatly admire his presentation of the evidence for natural selection; but I think he is wrong about the existence of God and I would argue that the evidence shows him to be wrong.»

If you were listening to NPR last week, you may have heard my friend Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, talking to Barbara Bradley Hagerty about genomic evidence that calls into question the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

I don't know about you, but I would believe the people who study the human mind, thoughts, and behavior (i.e. psychologists and sociologists), over someone who says there's some spooky external agent that no one can possibly verify the existence of, and which has no consistent pattern of action with which to use as evidence for verification.

Whereas in reality, there is overwhelming evidence in the Qur «an about the existence of a Creator.

[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as «an evidence - based scientific theory about life's origins» rather than «a religious - based idea».

Answer — I never said anything about needing evidence for the beginnings of the universe but rather needing evidence of the existence of your god.

I can't prove God's existence just as much as scientist can't prove the big bang... there is evidence of both but to reach a conclusion takes faith... one side leaves hope and the other does not... maybe I'm agnostic too because I don't claim to know everything about why I'm here, I have to have faith... Honestly, I'm sick of the extremes on both sides... the conservative judgmental Christian, who never thought through things as to why the believe what they do (ie Dinosaurs, cavemen, evolution, etc.) and the intellectually arrogant atheist and humanists.

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth = > hmm, how about earth itself?

I asked a physicist, Dr P E Hodgson, staunch Catholic as well as a physicist, whether the claim that a moving body is constantly in and out of existence (which claim the above understanding of motion implies) was acceptable to science and he replied «there are speculations about this, but no experimental evidence».

My church has an «Apologetics Weekend» with a number of speakers talking about evidence for the existence of God and why we know the Scriptures are reliable.

It's quite sad and says more about the state of the heart of those writing rather than any evidence against the existence of God.

Without any credible evidence for the existence of any god, they are about as lily to exist as the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

Schmidt, Perlmutter, and their colleague Adam Riess, a Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist, faced similar scrutiny for their discovery, which reversed cosmologists» common knowledge about the expansion of the universe and provided evidence for the existence of dark matter.

This and several other lines of evidence point to the existence of a mysterious form of invisible matter that exerts a gravitational influence on other matter and outweighs ordinary matter by a factor of about 6 to 1.

However, later observations by other astronomers using interferometric astrometry and recent radial velocity data found no evidence to support the existence of a companion greater than 0.8 Jupiter mass with an orbital period around Proxima Centauri of between one and about 2.7 years (Benedict et al, 1999).

Therefore, our study provides evidence of the existence of additional mutagenic processes in melanoma patients with MC1R variants, which make up about 26 - 40 % of the patient population3.

More evidence for the sequel's existence comes via a Hollywood Reporter story about Ellen DeGeneres entering negotiations to reprise her voice role of forgetful fish Dory.

The existence of social biases, however, does not necessarily mean that the rest of the critics» indictment, about pernicious motivations, is supported by the evidence.

These studies established the existence of stereotype threat and provided evidence that stereotypes suggesting poor performance, when made salient in a context involving the stereotypical ability, can disrupt performance, produce doubt about one's abilities, and cause an individual to disidentify with one's ethnic group.

Capcom, in a bid to further promote Monster Hunter: World, is now offering a reward # 50,000, or about $ 70,000, to anybody who can provide evidence of the existence of real - world monsters.

If correct, this surmise would remove the main evidence for the IPCC's claim about the existence of appreciable AGW.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»