Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[Dr_Doom]

Scientists have no proof either. It's all theorys.

 

[FuckLiberals]

Why do you religious people create massive straw men when you argue?

I am not an atheist. I am ignostic.

 

[The Brucemaster]

So basically whats being said is that in the end is that there is no unequivocal proof either way so we should all just forget about it and leave Dr Doom alone.

Pfft, no chance mon.

 

[davin]

Scientists have no proof either. It's all theorys.

scientists have plenty of evidence to back up those theories, and those theories have been used to make accurate predictions. the big bang isn't perfect, but its pretty accurate and constantly being improved

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It comes down to belief again.

Yea, you have a belief based on no solid evidence, it's awesome.

See... the thing is, you're saying you believe in God... but the question is then 'why?'. If you ask me why I don't believe in God, I can explain to you why, I ask you why and I'm sure you'll come up with something like 'it's a feeling in my heart'.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I love how in that video sashatheman posted up two or three pages ago explained the problem with this - the idea of tolerating people's belief in religion. That this sort of idea does not exist in other fields eg "tolerating people's belief in physics"

The example in the video went:

"I believe I have a diamond the size of refridgerator in my backyard"

The common reply is "Why?"

and the answers that normally come from a religious person would be

"Because it gives my life meaning" and "I wouldn't want to live a life without a diamond the size of a refridgerator in my backyard".

That person is automatically deemed idiotic, because these answers are not adequete. But in religion, we have to tolerate such answers, and it shelters the religion to grow, even into extremism. We have to tolerate the intolerant religions etc. It's a dangerous thing, religious tolerance....

Here's the link again if you're interested - http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...rris&pl =true

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol ok... dude, first of all a 'scientific theory' is just the word we use for a well-proven idea. Like flight, the 'theory of flight' is a scientific theory.

Now when it comes to 'ultimate reality', of course scientists can't know what is ultimately true. However, they work with what they have, to create 'provisional truths' and a 'provisional reality'. For example, say you wanted to disprove the existance of the easter bunny, you might want to find out if bunnys lay chocolate eggs.
So you get 1000 bunnies all together, and wait for them to lay something:

- First one lays something, so you pick it up and eat it. Oh.... that wasn't chocolate :/

Now at what point should we stop? I mean there's probably 100,000,000 rabbits in the world, should we endevour to test EVERY SINGLE ONE so we know 100% that we are right? No - we do testing, others do independant testing, we try to get it as well as we can... sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, who knows - but provisionally we are correct.

 

[davin]

more important...gravity is a theory. so, if scientific theories are really that bad, go jump from a building and see how that goes

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea I try to provide serious, real answers to their questions, I suppose a witty 'go jump off a building' is probably better for some of them tho.

 

[davin]

oh, i just meant that it stands in well instead of the theory of flight, esp since its something people accept so easily

 

[Dr_Doom]

You have taken my little comment and blown it completely out of proportion.

I'm not going to jump out of a building as I know there is a force going downwards. The theory of gravity trys to explain what causes that force.

Even if someone doesn't believe thats how the force is created. That doesn't mean they will jump out of a building and try to defy the earths gravitational force.

Ur_inner_child that link doesn't work :\

 

[davin]

the point is, thats only a theory. there's no PROOF and no ANSWER to why it happens.
the theory of gravity explains that there is a force, not just focuses on trying to explain the cause of that force

 

[crazyhomo]

There you just said it. SomeTHING must've caused GOD, just like GOD caused Jesus. So you agree with me? That there is a being out there!

Cheers man.

so that whole 'in the beginning there was the word and the word was god' stuff is just bs? it really shoulda been 'in the beginning there was someTHING that caused god'? god is not really the alpha and the omega? cause that sounds an awful lot to me like you're admitting your religion is a scam full of lies

but maybe i'm just interpreting it wrong....

 

[Analyst]

so that whole 'in the beginning there was the word and the word was god' stuff is just bs? it really shoulda been 'in the beginning there was someTHING that caused god'? god is not really the alpha and the omega? cause that sounds an awful lot to me like you're admitting your religion is a scam full of lies

but maybe i'm just interpreting it wrong....

Science does not make things happen. It just explains whats already happening in the universe. Science is a man- made concept to explain what they think and try to prove is happening. Its not capable enough to prove God just in itself, especially from the starting premise that God does not exist. If we try to explain rain by starting from the premise that it never rains, we will call it "waterfall", and "cloud piss" but never accept it as rain.

Explaining a phenomenon is done by acknowledging its presence and then objectively observing it, not outright denying it. So if you outright deny His presence, you can never understand Him.

 

[davin]

Religion is a man-made concept to explain what they think and try to prove is happening.

Science's starting point isn't that there is no god, but simply trying to use rules to explain the behaviour of the universe. The lack of a god is in no way the basis of science, understanding the mechanisms behind the universe is.
Again, many of the viewpoints in here are AGNOSTIC, not Atheists. Its the idea not that there is no god, thats atheism, but agnostic being that we don't know if there's a god or not, and lack the knowledge to determine that. However, part of that viewpoint is that, I personally, disagree with the views of the universe that are involved with believing in a god that interacts with the world, as is present in most religions. Spiritually, I've never felt like there's a god, but there could be one. I don't know. What I don't believe are the claims of a god that is interacting with the world as much as at least the abrahamic religions believe.

 

[crazyhomo]

Science does not make things happen. It just explains whats already happening in the universe. Science is a man- made concept to explain what they think and try to prove is happening. Its not capable enough to prove God just in itself, especially from the starting premise that God does not exist. If we try to explain rain by starting from the premise that it never rains, we will call it "waterfall", and "cloud piss" but never accept it as rain.

Explaining a phenomenon is done by acknowledging its presence and then objectively observing it, not outright denying it. So if you outright deny His presence, you can never understand Him.

since you did not actually address any part of my post, i'm going to assume you agree with the statement 'god was not the beginning'

 

[Analyst]

since you did not actually address any part of my post, i'm going to assume you agree with the statement 'god was not the beginning'

Genius!:rofl:

 

[crazyhomo]

Genius!:rofl:

if you think this is wrong, then please tell me why

 

[Analyst]

I could equally say - God is a man-made concept to explain what they think is happening.



If you want to choose two premises 1.God does not exist, or 2. God does exist, then you should take non-existence as the default. I know this has been said a thousand times before, but it is important. It is irrational to believe in something if there is no evidence for it - I do not believe in God for the same reason as I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster.

Yep, to prove that the loch ness monster does not exist... you have to go to the loch ness, dive in, look around as much as you can and then come out believeing it is not there. To say that becoz the monster hasnt shown up in my backyard hence it does not exist.... is ignorant, or should I say Agnostic???

 

[Analyst]

if you think this is wrong, then please tell me why

You are right, God was not the beginning. the beginning was actually created by Him.