Sentences with phrase «evidenced by the existence»

It is harder for us as gay people, but it's not impossible, evidenced by the existence of gay couples in every geographical region of our country.

Not exact matches

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus and MANY of the biblical stories, it is verifiable and not questioned by any real scholars today.

sam stone Given we are made in the image of God our core «DNA» (as evidenced by 98 % of the world population) knows there is more to this existence than chemical reaction on organic matter.

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

There has never been a single shred of evidence to prove the existence of any of the literally thousands of gods worshiped by humans throughout their existence.

I'm not sure what I said to lead you to believe that I am «throwing out the most proven and fundamental laws of science» since I'm pretty sure that none of the laws that you mention describe a need for the past to be gone and the future to not exist yet, and I was only forwarding a theoretical possibility with apparently good evidence as far as I can tell to address the question «Why would matter come into existence all by itself for no good reason?»

All these creatures» existence is supported by equal evidence, they are therefor all equally likely to exist.

Perhaps you should be looking into why other people think they «see» something that apparently has no evidence (by my definition) of its existence.

It was written by many people over the span of hundreds of years, it is tribal rules from the infancy of our development and arguably is not a good book at all but full of hatred, spite and unspeakable violence, and you arent allowed to use «faith» as your proof of existence... faith is nothing less than the throwing away of reason i.e. belief without evidence.

The existence of God can only be dis - proven by factual evidence, none of which has been produced against it.

Chad, please get busy with the empirical evidence of any god's existence which is supported by a 2/3 majority of physicists (the dudes who best understand the rules governing our reality).

Just because a city existed and was destroyed by fire, it doesn't lend the tiniest bit of evidence to the existence of a god.

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.

By the way, the Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God than Juius Leblanc Stewart's painting «Nude in the Forest» is evidence that women actually stand around nude in the forest.

The talks of the conference have sought to explain what it means to say we have faith in God by looking at the evidence for His existence and his eternal plan to found the Church as man's true environment in which he comes into contact with his creator.

Krishna, Yewah, Zeus, Apollo, Thor... All have the same amount of evidence proving their existence, so does the idea that the universe was created by a unemotional binary computer that lives in the 10th dimension.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that some kind of existence continues after death, though I can not say by what mechanism.

Further evidence for the existence of table - fellowship with «tax collectors and sinners» as a feature of the ministry of Jesus is the role played by communal meals in earliest Christianity (E. Lohmeyer, Lord of the Temple [ET by Stewart Todd of Kultus und Evangelism (1942); Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961], pp. 79ff, discusses the central role of table - fellowship in the ministry of Jesus, but he is particularly concerned with the development towards the Last Supper, which he sees as historical, rather than with the relationship between this table - fellowship and the cross, on the one hand, and the communal meals of early Christianity on the other.)

page 285 ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price «Jesus at the Vanishing Point» in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61 [10] Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that «In recent years, «no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus» or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.»

This outlook has represented a prominent strand in theology from the Hellenistic influence apparent in Hebrews 11:6 («Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him»), through the medieval Anselmic and Thomistic arguments for the existence of God, reaching a climax in the 18th century deistic arguments for a Great Designer evidenced by the intricacy and harmony of the universe.

There is no «empirical evidence» for their existence — you could not «prove» they exist by attempting to explain it to someone else — yet they exist.

Evidence for the existence of King Gilgamesh is found in inscriptions crediting him with the building of the great walls of Uruk, references to him by known historical figures of his time (26th century BCE) such as King Enmebaragesi of Kish and the Sumerian King List that says he ruled for 125 years.

Even if you can't bring yourself to call it «God,» it is undeniable that the cause, whatever it is, must be transcendent and preexistent, as it had to have existed before everything else in order to have caused everything else; it must be immaterial, as its existence preceded the existence of matter; it must be intelligent, as evidenced by the complexity of the universe it caused; and it must itself be uncaused, existing necessarily rather than contingently.

Or, perhaps what you accepted as evidence was simply statements by others of the existence of evidence.

And the REASON they do so is because after considering the evidence, not proof but evidence, they have determined that this being revealed in scripture is by far the most plausible explanation for not only their own existence but also for that of the entire universe.

«whatever it is, must be transcendent and preexistent, as it had to have existed before everything else in order to have caused everything else; it must be immaterial, as its existence preceded the existence of matter; it must be intelligent, as evidenced by the complexity of the universe it caused; and it must itself be uncaused, existing necessarily rather than contingently.»

There isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any of the thousands of gods created and worshiped by humanity.

God has given sufficient evidence of His existence and of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures by means of fulfilled prophecy.

The reason why some say that there is no god is because there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any god, and indeed a preponderance of evidence to show that the universe and this world were formed by very natural processes.

Our existence can be explained by evolution (of which there is plenty of hard evidence), bad things happen to both good and bad people equally, etc..

There has never been any credible evidence put forth to support the initial claim by religion for the existence of hell.

«Founded by atheism, claimed by atheism, supported by atheism, and exclusively in the interests of atheism, suppressing without mercy every jot of evidence for the divine existence, and so making a positive rational faith in God wholly impossible, the doctrine of evolution may well be set down as not only a foe to theism, but a foe of the most thoroughgoing sort.»

Tarver, there has never been any credible evidence put forth to support the initial claim by religion for the existence of God.

Beyond that it is a quote mine for people who hope to avail themselves of the Ultimate Authority, the existence of which is supported by no evidence.

In addition, the theory of evolution, does not try to prove or disprove the existence of a God, it is however, supported by mountains of evidence.

Whilst Fr Edward Holloway, founder of Faith movement, argues that such is positive evidence for God, Stoeger caught the mood of the conference by simply saying it was not inconsistent with there existing - above and beyond science - a «theological teleology, a reason for it all», and thus it was not inconsistent with the existence of God.»

clarity: «There has never been any credible evidence put forth to support the initial claim by religion for the existence of God.»

both stories pre date the existence of Israel, Judah and any evidence of israelite culture by well over a thousand years.

This verification is both by the objective historical and literary evidence and by the «reasons of the heart» which form so large a part of human existence and of Christian faith and experience in particular.

The existence of a serious dialogue between Christians and Greek and Roman philosophers, conducted at the highest intellectual level for over three centuries (the mid-second century to the mid-fifth), is evidence that Christian thinkers did not supplant reason by faith and authority.

Still others try to use the regularities of nature as proof of the existence of God, and argue that the evidence of purpose and design in the universe has been increased by modern knowledge.

«But his existence is supported by the evidence — nibbled cookies, presents under the tree, the presence of his helpers at every shopping mall in the country.»

However, all this, as we know, has had to be reconsidered by Christians, Mother Church included, once the geological and palaeontological sciences began to reveal the apparently immense age of the earth and the evidence that the biological species did not all come into existence at once exactly as they are today but by some kind of transformism.

Just as it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God by either strictly empirical or logical evidence, so it is impossible to verify that a person has been confronted by God.

[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».

Speaking on a conference call with far - right pastor Rick Scarborough, Gohmert warned listeners that the nation could be coming «toward the end of [its] existence,» as evidenced by its leaders and citizens allegedly neglecting to remain true to biblical teachings.

No, instead, he'll be suppressed by the entire lack of evidence of his existence.

Personally, I stopped believing in god when I realized that literally thousands of gods have been invented, worshiped, replaced or rejected by humanity throughout history, and that there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any of them, even the christian god.

Actually there's absolutely no «historical evidence» for the real existence of «Jesus»... which is (according to the Christian scriptures) a good thing... since it's «by faith ye are saved», and proof negates faith along with any need for it...

There is no actual verifiable evidence of the existence of this Jesus figure that would be accepted as proof by contemporary historians.