^ Huh aint i the ''faith'' guy who uses no logic? why did you coverse with me in the first place if you belive i have nothing logical to say? thats not logical is it? ive taken nothing out of context either, if i have then i would like you to show me.
you see this is going to go on forever its already 21 pages long, too lazy so im done with this for the moment.
Nice to know you'll be back later, no i wont be getting any so-called "god faith fact sites" (sometimes i feel you just throw words together and hope for the best). maybe you'll be able to string together a sensible paragraph with the aid of one one your 'fact' sites..
that is just your ultimate answer for everything... "you must have faith", that is not a cold hard fact that doesn't prove there is a god... and master_g.... you state that god is a higher being outside the realm of time and space, what proof do you have to make such a statement? is faith your answer to that as well? just have faith? sounds like a sales pitch more than a factual answer. science hasn't reached the sophisticated level to explain these things now.... it took many years before Aristotle came along to prove the earth was round... about 2500 years ago.... the industrial revolution in the 18-19th century.... about 200 years ago.... when we came out with the steam engine.... when do you think the first computer was made? less than 100 years ago.... how are you to say science isn't still in its developmental stages? many fields of science are advancing drastically and its only a matter of time along with the potential of the human mind when science will prove the process life was created. many say that humans are so complex that it couldn't have been by chance... that the odds are billions and billions to one.... but how vast do you think the universe is? you think the galaxies we have discovered now, present day, with our limited technologies is all there is? if so then you must be very closed minded... but then most religious people are.:sleep:
^ What proof do you have to say it is not true? i believe faith is exercised on both sides, unless you can disprove God? I think its been made clear that one mans proof of God may not be anothers, with that in mind God can not be proven or disproven to a degree that satisfies everyone, if it could then this thread would not be here.
and what proof do you have to disprove my statement? exactly.... we get no where if all you do is resort back to this statement, nothing new to contribute, nothing new to add to favor your side of the battle.... i have added that science hasn't and probably never will come to a dead end, what is your rebuttal for those statements? Faith. faith is a word, a word that means the belief in the trustworthiness of an idea, God could very well be an idea fabricated by men, as a scapegoat to explain what couldn't be explained many years ago. But, when we do find out these answers what then? what happens to all the churches? what happens to the followers of god?
Einstein proved that the there was a subtil reason for the creation of the universe! The imense power needed is proof enough that a superior inteligence exists beyond human control. Nature is a big creation. For every inteligent effect there's a sure an inteligent cause! All Jesus Words never lost meaning and actually are so right! For those who know them might encounter a great atmosphere. Don't fool yourselves, Knowledge might be wisdom, but you might leave in a black hole, without spiritual enlightning! the 5 senses human have are not capable to touch/see/taste/ear/smell/ all other infinite space worls forms of life. Eternel life will continue even without us as humans... Evolution progress always... Allan Kardec in 1857 started explaining free ebooks available in the web, just google it... The faith must resist to the power of reason, Only this faith can survive endlessly over times.
well so do you? they are sides.... everyone has a choice, so i choose the side where things are justified by proven calculations and facts, not by blind faith in a higher being which may or may not be real. and you, above me, what? are you an intelligent design believer? cause that is hilarious.
the percentage that god exists is the same as the percentage that there r aliens in the world... they r both extremely small, however... since the universe is so big and we know so little, we cant say they don't exist
that has got to be what people call..... pulling statistics out of your ass... please think things through before you suggest the existence of god has the same possible chance as life on a distant planet....
I couldn't help but laugh at that. But back on topic, I find it pretty difficult to understand what JUSTIFIES a belief in a "God". In my debates with my Christian friend, no matter what points I put across, he always waves it away under the claim that the spiritual can not be defined in the material world. This, of course, raises a few eyebrows in regards to the validity of such a claim, but also entails a very interesting consequence if that is true. I can therefore define anything into existance by tagging a "spiritual" tag to it. Less relevantly, this avenue of thought can be regarded as non-scientific by Popper's definition of a science. This, in combination with the much supported and easily justifiable stance that empirical science is the best avenue to true knowledge that humankind possesses, renders (in my opinion) such ways of justifying a omnipotent creator useless and invalid. In addition, the very assumption that the universe needs a creator and such a creator himself does not need one seems like an unneccessary complication. Using Ockham's Razor, why can we not assume the universe is self-substaining instead of a god that raises even more questions? Need I not remind everyone of the paradoxial problems that are brought up when a omnipotent and omniscient being is defined? What JUSTIFIES the belief that God exists? Faith I can understand. Humans can achieve inhuman feats of strength and resilience once they let go of their fear of death and nothingness - i.e. trust in a God or gods. The way I see it, religion is much like a placebo in a test of a superhuman tablet, but the vindicated and passionate belief these people have in such beings really pushes the bounds of logic. Faith is faith. Faith helps the needy and those in need of spiritual support to live their lives in the hope that their suffering will be worth it. But when you try to supplant the foundational pillar of human knowledge with said faith, in my opinion that is overstepping the bounds within which religion was originally concieved of. In my view, the intellectual and scientific society is being very tolerant towards religion in the modern era, likely because of a view similar or identical to the one expressed in this paragraph. Faith is faith. Science is science. Faith's domain does not encompass finding knowledge, this is the domain of science. Science in the same capacity does not encompass spiritual satisfaction, that is the domain of faith. Some people in the world require spiritual satisfaction, some don't. Confusing spiritual satisfaction for a truth or a truth for spiritual satisfaction is not only unhelpful, but also detrimental to society's evolution of knowledge as a whole. Abandoning my messy and lengthy post for a second here, I want to share with you all a very interesting point raised in my philosophy class during a religious discussion a few years ago. Heheh. I stil laugh at that conclusion every time. Note: I am not an athiest or a religious person. Although I drift closer to atheism, this is mainly due to the (in my view) selective and out-of-context claims made by the pro-deities that do not satisfy the intellectual and rational part of me.
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil? If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God? - Epicurus
There are several problem with the asumptions being made : 1) The assumption that God is confined to natural laws and cannot operate outside of it. The very fact we have a term supernatural means it is outside the realm of the natural. For example, a miracle is defined as something that we cannot explain by natural laws. 2) The assumption that man has absolute knowledge i.e. all that is to be known past, present and future is known. The problem is we are constantly making judgements based on incomplete information and that man do not have absolute knowledge. When we put God in a box we already assuming we can define the size of the box. 3) The assumption that something cannot be created out of nothing. This is true for man because all of man's creation is based on materials that are in existence. However God is the sole authority of creation and therefore He determine the rules of creation and that include the size of our brains. Unfortunately out of pride and ignorance we think we have a brain that is bigger than God's. By the way, for all those who think that you have a brain - are you so sure there is one because have you actually opened up to see if there is one? It might just be the greatest con job there is in that we are told we have one and we assume that is true and have never checked it physically.
1) The fact we have a term 'supernatural' doesn't mean that things of a supernatural nature exist. We have words like ghost, sasquatch, dragon, and bogeyman, for example, none of which have been scientifically proven to exist, but which we would group under the term 'supernatural'. If your justification that god exists is that he is 'supernatural' then you are grouping him under a category of imaginary beings and concepts that have never been proven and are highly suspect. 2) I haven't read anything in here that claims that man is all knowing, on the contrary, man's knowledge is limited to the sum of his experiences. Because man can only conceptualize within the scope of his imagination, every individual places god within a box; there is no other way of perceiving a being of no provable material nature. 3) I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with this one? So god created all matter and we can only work with what we've got? The fact that man cannot create something out of nothing is not a proof that there is a god who can create whatever he wants from nothingness. You're implying a negative argument that has no real premise. Also, you're suggesting that human beings don't have brains because we haven't seen them? What about god? when was the last time you saw that guy? By your reasoning all the neurosurgeons and neurologists who spend 10-15 years of their lives studying the brain are all conspiring together to suck money out of society's pocket.
I think I'm going to have to agree with fearless_fx on this one. I too have no idea where you're going with this claim. The Big Bang theory is pretty much enough of a phrase to demonstrate the scientific society's views on the possibility of something being created out of nothing. The space-time fabric of the universe as we know it was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Furthermore, most people understand and accept the fact that there was no "time" as we knew it before the gargantuan event. What we cannot accept however (or should we say we cannot understand the reasons and justifications for) is attributing such an event with an omnipotent creator. Justifications such as "spiritual", "almighty" and "supernatural" do not make a thing any more believable. Who claims that God is the sole authority of creation? A two-and-a-half thousand year book? Back then people thought that flash floods, hurricanes and plagues were the work of God, however science has given much more logical and universally applicable reasons to explain them. Back then people thought the world was flat and the world was only 6000 years old, how wrong they were on both points. Basing such beliefs on a book older than intellectual society is comparable to believing that Santa is actually Big Brother looking if you're bad or good. In addition, several rare medical cases have implied that altering the brain and how it functions can influence drastic changes in human mental and emotional operations. Separating the link between the brain hemispheres can reduce the damage and loss of control exhibited by epileptic seizures but also drastically alters the way the "mind" (which is understood by the religious and spiritual as "the soul") interprets data such as the written word. Early 20th century psycho-surgery, in particular lobotomies, have had clear effects on human behavior commonly associated with the human soul, such as personality and morality. Same reasoning can apply to the Bible. The New Testament in the Bible makes reference to priests and pharisees tricking the public into purchasing "holy" animals and other items (such as gold) for sacrifice to God as opposed to bringing one's own. Jesus is then documented as overturning one of the tables whilst accusing the Temple as being a "den of robbers". On a first glance it can be seen that Jesus could be doing what is "right" in the name of "God". But reading closer between the lines it can be seen that religion itself in that time (further reading of future events such as isolated claims of the coming "Rapture" can expand this line of thought) was utilized as you would put it - "the greatest con job there is.... and we assume that is true". So all in all, you're arguing from the reference point of a single book whose first chapters were created long before the birth of modern explanatory science, who advocate claims that everything in the world is manipulated by one almighty God and which virtually all its supernatural claims have been re-attributed other causes via science. I think I need a more convincing argument to demonstrate to me the supposed error of my belief.
FUCK ME! cant believe this is still open for discussion!! DAYUm Heres my two cents: Imagine if we were beings like Pac Man and someone told us that there was such thing as three-dimensions that from this three dimensional world we were created in two dimensions. For us Pacmen we can have no proof that the third dimension exists. Because our world was not built with 3D in mind. We can either think about another possibility or we can either believe that because our world is unable to comprehend the existence of something greater then it doesnt exist. Now if there was someway that a pacmans intelligence could be transferred into the 3D world then it could really experience the realm outside of its previous one. Ultimately I feel that the matrix is a very thought provoking movie in regards to this point. Its up to you if you take the red or blue pill but ultimately the only reality that will be real to you is the one tht you choose to accept. If it is real to you and you believe it with all your heart then who can make you think otherwise??
