Quote:

---

well you never know till you read, it's scientifically proven if you believe it or not.

---

Quote:

---

About this title: When he faced death with terminal cancer. He made a miraculous recovery after Christians prayed for him, he began to re-evaluate his scientific position. Research reveals startling facts: The investigation are published her in their entirety.

---

So far for the 'scientifically proven' part in my opinion, it's just another person claiming or concluding he was saved by faith/prayers. It's pretty much irrelevant if I believe in this or not, but this form of evidence has very little credibility, no matter how important the person that says something, we can only trust their word or not trust it. In science you can repeat an experiment and come to a similar or maybe even exact same conclusions as one did before you in the same experiment, with near-death experiences, miracilously revived people and spirit sightings (the ones of which they claim no photograph can be taken off ), just to name some, this can be somewhat of a problem .

If think we have the right to doubt, because there's no, or at least not enough evidence that there is something like a God. The fact that millions of people nevertheless believe in it, says more about those persons, than about wether or not God exists in my opinion. It's not a crime to believe, so it should not be a crime to not believe either, but honestly at this point in time I think the existance of a God is highly unlikely, both scientifically and pure logically. The latter, as in, why would he sent Christ who will suffer for us, instead of making us earn our place in heaven by our actions on earth? But also; why does the Bible exist with the socalled 'words of God', especially when there are a lot more texts written around that time (apocrif texts; 'the Dead Sea scrolls' and certain 'Prophecy of ...'-texts) that have quite similar content in a way, yet they are not part of 'the Bible', may I ask why?
And another point I often hear religious people claim is the importance of holding on to tradition. Well holding on to it most of the time doesn't exactly mean development, but more maintaining a stand still. It limits us to dare to think for ourselves in a way, maybe not always literally, but the line 'it's good to hold on to our traditions' get's quoted a lot by some religious persons in my vicinity.

Anyways wether the absense of evidence means the existance of God is unproven ór false, well we might never find that out. Lol, I say 'might' yet it must be 'will', if the it turns out to be 'unproven', but we don't end up at hell's gate or heaven's gate, then that proves there's no such thing as a hell or heaven, but uhhh, those it disproof the existance of God?
I guess I'll stick to my 'if you can see it, then it's there, if you can't see it then it's either out of sight or it's not there'-theory, meaning God's existance is relative to my knowledge, and since I'm unaware of the existance of any proof good and solid enough to withstand my own critic, doubt & logic, hence I don't believe in God. Not necessarily right, yet most truth worthy in my opinion, I mean, it's a fact we don't really know, doesn't matter how you flip the cards.

Cheers