so I asked this question and this person told me to rewrite like first paragraph. mine is the second. im very untrusting by nature im sorry :( just can you tell me which is better and maybe toss an advice?
However, there are reasons why we want to believe in a God or a higher power. Christianity for instance, teaches the doctrine of an eternal happiness, eternal pain and agony. To prove by definition is to demonstrate the validity by evidence or argument. Science cannot prove the existence of God, but logic can. Over whelming, indirect evidence indicates there is no objective means to accept either Christianity or the existence of God.
However, there are reasons why we want to believe in God. Christianity, for instance, teaches the doctrine of an eternal happiness and eternal pain and agony. To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the validity by evidence or argument. Science cannot prove the existence of God, but logic can. Overwhelming indirect evidence indicates there is no objective reason to accept either Christianity or the existence of God.
Update:Amy, yes. almost made a big mistake. thanks. ill select u as best answer lol
tomorrow, when i wake up since i cant select any best answer now
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
The punctuation in your paragraph makes it much easier to understand. However, the last two contradictory sentences puzzle me. The first of the sentences says that logic can prove the existence of God, but the second essentially states there is indirect evidence not to accept god or Christianity. Did the previous sentence mean to say, "Science cannot disprove the existence . . . ?" The last sentence would then make more sense.
I like the second one. Grammar seems better. Your point also comes across better.
:)