Science was once a child of the church.

[mickiel]

So, are you able to show us a way to verify a god. Please define and present evidence for such a thing. Put up or shut the fuck up.

As to science, it may be a child of philosophy, definitely not a child of religion.

There are many ways to verify a god , but because god is unorthodox, the verification is as well; one has to think outside the box of the norm. atheism is a way to verify god, why has not the world been entirely atheist, since it began that way? And why has theism overshadowed atheism in human history? How did it move to the forefront and stay that way for so long?

The duality concept must be observed then, as unorthodox as it is. How could we have up without down? In without out? Good without evil? Yen without yang? theist without atheist? Natural without unnatural? Male without female? The existence of one demands the existence of the other.

atheism is right, none of mans gods exist, absolutely none of them. But there is a god outside of human invention. Both then must exist, no gods and god. That duality is evidence that no yen can be removed from the yang. We cannot remove females and claim only males exist. As long as atheism exist, then god must exist, or atheism has no reason to exist.

---

Yea, so we just got insanely lucky , and atheist are spreading the story of mammoth luck like religion spreads its story of insane hell.

Both pimping the incredible.

We didn't "get" lucky because being lucky implies that the circumstances we find ourselves in were part of a game made to potentially bring life into existence. We didn't get lucky, we just are. The chances of it happening, in retrospect, are one hundred percent, but this is just how the bones rolled. In another universe we might possibly never have existed, and the universe would not care a jot. None of this was made for us, none of it cares for us, and our existence in it isn't a requirement. We are a transitory blip in spacetime, and our existence isn't assured in the future any more than it was demanded of the past.

Does that make you uncomfortable?

The happenstance view is uncomfortable. I do not accept it. Its a chance filling of a serious hole in you're philosophy. As you attempt to cover up god, you do so be altering creation from a preplanned event to now an incredible roll of mythical universal dice.