Is God real post your thoughts!

[warri0r45]

Thank you. It's just that, there are those few things in life that cannot be explained by science/logic/rationality. An example : What happened before the Big Bang theory. No one knows for sure the answer to that. Well then, isn't it possible that you can throw in "God theory" before the Big Bang theory? (Assuming that "God" is a singular, invisible super-entity.) It's a possibility. Then, God (in this case) would have indirectly created the stars and planets, life, and everything else in the universe.... when God had possibly created the Big Bang in this theory. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Underlined: Theory, in this instance, means : A scientific possibility that is not yet proven by science in reality.

 

 

 

Yes, and the 'god theory' has nothing to do with the miststatements of fact etc that I took up with you. Sure, there may have been a god that started the big bang, but really, that's not what I responded to you about. By the way your definition of theory needs a little work. A theory is a system of explanation regarding the natural world that can be very well supported and for all intents and purposes be considered "proven". The big bang theory is a well supported cosmological model for the change of the universe over time based on tested hypotheses and is not just one of many 'possibilities' that are 'unproven'. The language there dosen't suit the reality of the situation.

[wildernessfreelancer]

What I said

in this instance

 

 

 

Do I have to bold/caps/underline this quote? Dictionaries? I'll say it again : In this instance, in this instance, in this instance.

 

 

 

So much for being smart by suggesting that I should use a dictionary when I had already mentioned what I've quoted.

 

 

 

BlueLancer's

I feel like an idiot I actually tried replying to him, lol.

 

 

 

NOW I know how you feel. 8-)

[warri0r45]

What I said

in this instance

 

 

 

Do I have to bold/caps/underline this quote? Dictionaries? I'll say it again : In this instance, in this instance, in this instance.

 

 

 

So much for being smart by suggesting that I should use a dictionary when I had already mentioned what I've quoted.

 

 

 

BlueLancer's

I feel like an idiot I actually tried replying to him, lol.

 

 

 

NOW I know how you feel. 8-)

 

 

 

Dude, whether you say in this instance or not dosen't change the fact that your definition of the word "theory" in relation to the big bang theory is a misrepresentation and just not apt.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

What I said

in this instance

 

 

 

Do I have to bold/caps/underline this quote? Dictionaries? I'll say it again : In this instance, in this instance, in this instance.

 

 

 

So much for being smart by suggesting that I should use a dictionary when I had already mentioned what I've quoted.

 

 

 

BlueLancer's

I feel like an idiot I actually tried replying to him, lol.

 

 

 

NOW I know how you feel. 8-)

 

I assume that the instance is science, since you talked about science many times in your post. In this instance, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven by science in reality.

[wildernessfreelancer]

warri0r's

A theory is a system of explanation regarding the natural world that can be very well supported and for all intents and purposes be considered "proven".

 

 

 

So what you're trying to say is that the theory above can be most likely be proven? This is what separates the idea/possibility from reality. It is possible for scientists to overlook certain facts and neglect the small factors making it quite different from what it's supposed do in theory and what it's supposed to do in real life. You can't just assume that theories are most likely proven to be a fact just because there is a high possibility that it may be a fact. Unless you're 100% sure.

 

 

 

Underlined: Scientists are trying to figure out what dark matter/dark energy does, how it exists and how it affects certain theories. (Especially in space.) This is still being done as we speak.

[wildernessfreelancer]

PaperClipsYaaaar's

In this instance, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven by science in reality.

 

 

 

If a theory has been proven in reality, it becomes a fact. A theory doesn't stay as a theory if it is proven. 8-)

[IGoddessI]

and I have a little TIP for you, do you get the POINT? :lol: :lol:

[wildernessfreelancer]

IGoddessI's

and I have a little TIP for you, do you get the POINT?

 

 

 

Yeah, I got the point. Just because I can't afford to buy a dictionary doesn't mean that you middle/upper-class people can discriminate the lower-class. This is outrageous. 8-)

[wildernessfreelancer]

PaperClipsYaaaar's

In this instance, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven by science in reality.

 

 

 

You should have bolded that. :uhh: You're right, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven to be real. But, you can't say that the system of those laws will work in what you might have anticipated. Have you ever tried to mix a few laws together, make it into a theory and is (surprisingly) proven wrong?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

PaperClipsYaaaar's

In this instance, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven by science in reality.

 

 

 

You should have bolded that. :uhh: You're right, a theory is a system of laws that have been proven to be real. But, you can't say that the system of those laws will work in what you might have anticipated. Have you ever tried to mix a few laws together, make it into a theory and is (surprisingly) proven wrong?

 

If you mix laws together, you make a hypothesis.

 

 

 

If your hypothesis is proven wrong, you restart the process.

 

 

 

If your hypothesis is proven right, it becomes a theory.

[wildernessfreelancer]

PaperClipsYaaar's

If you mix laws together, you make a hypothesis.

 

 

 

If your hypothesis is proven wrong, you restart the process.

 

 

 

If your hypothesis is proven right, it becomes a theory.

 

 

 

 

 

How do you go about proving hypothesis? By using rational thoughts, or by real life experiments? And if the hypothesis is proven right (using real life experiments), why does it become a theory? Wouldn't it be easier to say that it's a fact, skipping the theory part?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

How do you go about proving hypothesis? By using rational thoughts, or by real life experiments?

 

Both

 

 

 

 

And if the hypothesis is proven right, why does it become a theory? Wouldn't it be easier to say that it's a fact, skipping the theory part?

 

a fact is a law. multiple laws make up theories.

[BlueLancer]

there are those few things in life that cannot be explained by science/logic/rationality. An example : What happened before the Big Bang theory. No one knows for sure the answer to that. Well then, isn't it possible that you can throw in "God theory" before the Big Bang theory? (Assuming that "God" is a singular, invisible super-entity.) It's a possibility.

 

 

 

That's exactly what me and just about everyone else were saying. Of course it's possible a God/gods could've set particles and atoms in motion or created matter. Maybe even the infamous, invisible pink unicorn did so. I can't disprove that.

 

 

 

You were implying you have some hidden knowledge, that you know "the soul and afterlife are proven scientifically" and other not-even-pseudo-scientific ramblings.

 

 

 

You have a right to your opinion, but don't expect people to just swallow so called "B.S" without evaluating your facts. You can't just say in a debate "I know afterlife is a scientific fact and it exists". You have no sources, documentation or any evidence supporting your claim.

[Ape]

If someone flipped a double headed coin, and by chance, a solar wind happened to be within our atmousphere and hit the coin, melting one face and it then being solidified into the exact shape of a tails, whilst not incinerating the person who flipped the coin, and then the coin landing on tails, whilst balancing on a drawing pin facing up, is the chance that someone can prove that God exists.

 

 

 

Now lets all move onto a different subject, that has somewhat of a non carpe diem nature. [Excuse the spelling mistakes, if any]

[Defender2516]

If someone flipped a double headed coin, and by chance, a solar wind happened to be within our atmousphere and hit the coin, melting one face and it then being solidified into the exact shape of a tails, whilst not incinerating the person who flipped the coin, and then the coin landing on tails, whilst balancing on a drawing pin facing up, is the chance that someone can prove that God exists.

 

 

 

Now lets all move onto a different subject, that has somewhat of a non carpe diem nature. [Excuse the spelling mistakes, if any]

 

 

 

Wow you have such great knowledge to produce such a claim in a single paragraph. I think you may have changed how people really think about God now.

 

 

 

Now considering this topic IS about God.. lets get back to the discussion. Lets do a test shall we, how about Bible Prophecy. Can anyone proove God through that, as he has made ALOT.

[Ape]

My knowledge of God is little? Hmm, guess what? So's everyone else's.

 

 

 

I wasn't even attempting to show any knowledge. I was trying to state how this is such an open-ended discussion, that it is worthless and that the probability of someone proving God's existance was minute, and even minute is an extreme exaggeration. What will come at the end? What will come throughout? Nothing. We will all draw the same conclusion, as we have many a time in the past. "There is no proof that God exists; faith is all you have. Get over it."

[venomai]

I wasn't even attempting to show any knowledge. I was trying to state how this is such an open-ended discussion, that it is worthless and that the probability of someone proving God's existance was minute, and even minute is an extreme exaggeration. What will come at the end? What will come throughout? Nothing. We will all draw the same conclusion, as we have many a time in the past. "There is no proof that God exists; faith is all you have. Get over it."

 

I think you're misunderstanding the point of a "religious debate". Most of us aren't trying to prove God through scientific means. Rather, we are voicing our opinions and doing our best to get others to agree with us.

 

 

 

Religious debates help broaden your knowledge and open your mind to different viewpoints. :) I feel more enlightened every time I participate in one.

[Ragen]

 

I think you're misunderstanding the point of a "religious debate". Most of us aren't trying to prove God through scientific means. Rather, we are voicing our opinions and doing our best to get others to agree with us.

 

 

 

Religious debates help broaden your knowledge and open your mind to different viewpoints. :) I feel more enlightened every time I participate in one.

 

 

 

That's my problem with religious debates :D There is barely ever an exchange of facts and opinions can be incredibally silly at times. For what it's worth, I do believe in a God, as my own existance is far to mindboggling to contemplate without one.

 

 

 

Edit - I still enjoy thinking about the bigger questions though, where did we come from etc. A God just seems like the best explanation at the moment. Everything and nothing (life and death/ creation of the Universe) is a really hard concept and God makes it slightly easier, as there is still something when nothing is there.

[tintin113]

Wow, how many books, lectures, hours and wars have gone into this question?

 

 

 

If you ask me, he coulnd't possibly exist.

 

But then you ask me, how did it all start then?

 

And I don't know.

 

But how did "God" start?

 

And then what is God?

 

If the word god means: "giver of life" then our God must be the sun?

 

The sun obviously exists, so if the above is true, then there is a God.

 

 

 

I won't go deeper into my thoughts because if anything (I'm atheist) I would be a taoist - pronounced daoist -:

 

Nature made the universe.

 

Nature is God.

 

Don't disturb the flow of nature.

 

Disturbing nature will bring awful consequences for everyone.

 

 

 

It sounds pretty foolproof to me, and "God" knows there are enough fools in this world. Also the last point is particularly topical at the moment, sounds like they just about got it right.

 

 

 

This is a massive topic, and so many people could write books and eries of books on this question, getting nowhere.

 

 

 

People have thought for hours, days, months on this very subject, and been driven mad.

 

 

 

I don't want to go into any more depth because I could be here all night.

[Rebdragon]

I won't go deeper into my thoughts because if anything (I'm atheist) I would be a taoist - pronounced daoist -:

 

Fix'd.

[tintin113]

I won't go deeper into my thoughts because if anything (I'm atheist) I would be a taoist - pronounced daoist -:

 

Fix'd.

 

 

 

Oop! :oops:

[Sly_Wizard]

The *only* source which claims Jesus performed miracles are the scrolls and scriptures compiled in the Bible. There is no other account of eyewitnesses, contemporary historians or any roman government documents proving any miracles have been performed by him.

 

 

 

I said I was going to stop arguing with you, but I lied. I wanted to go bang my head against the wall when I read this :wall: Biblical cannon is a collection of prophecies, testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus. As I'm sure you're well aware, the Bible wasn't written by one-single authoratative figure.

 

 

 

Furthermore, why would the Roman government acknowledge any miracle by Jesus Christ, seeing as how Christianity (Well, it the Sect/Cult of Nazarene as it was known at the time) was considered a threat to the establishment of the Roman Empire and Jesus himself crucified on the grounds of trying to overthrow the Roman government? Wouldn't make any sense, now would it? :-k

[nine naked men]

The *only* source which claims Jesus performed miracles are the scrolls and scriptures compiled in the Bible. There is no other account of eyewitnesses, contemporary historians or any roman government documents proving any miracles have been performed by him.

 

 

 

I said I was going to stop arguing with you, but I lied. I wanted to go bang my head against the wall when I read this :wall: Biblical cannon is a collection of prophecies, testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus. As I'm sure you're well aware, the Bible wasn't written by one-single authoratative figure.

 

 

 

Furthermore, why would the Roman government acknowledge any miracle by Jesus Christ, seeing as how Christianity (Well, it the Sect/Cult of Nazarene as it was known at the time) was considered a threat to the establishment of the Roman Empire and Jesus himself crucified on the grounds of trying to overthrow the Roman government? Wouldn't make any sense, now would it? :-k

 

 

 

I was under the impression that Jesus died to forgive our sins, not as an act of political vendetta against the Romans... :? I was wrong, I suppose.

[warri0r45]

warri0r's

A theory is a system of explanation regarding the natural world that can be very well supported and for all intents and purposes be considered "proven".

 

 

 

So what you're trying to say is that the theory above can be most likely be proven? This is what separates the idea/possibility from reality. It is possible for scientists to overlook certain facts and neglect the small factors making it quite different from what it's supposed do in theory and what it's supposed to do in real life. You can't just assume that theories are most likely proven to be a fact just because there is a high possibility that it may be a fact. Unless you're 100% sure.

 

 

 

Underlined: Scientists are trying to figure out what dark matter/dark energy does, how it exists and how it affects certain theories. (Especially in space.) This is still being done as we speak.

 

 

 

The words/phrases 'proven' and '100% sure' aren't scientific. I'm telling you that we can be sure of a theory to a high degree (in some cases to the extent where it would be perverse to withold provisional consent, i.e. not accept it as a tentative fact) to the extent where no other 'possibilities' look at all compelling, i.e. the evidence sides firmly on one side of the fence. We don't need to prove something 100% to be sure and yes, there can be grey areas and unknowns in a theory while still being confident that it is accurate.

[Sly_Wizard]

I was under the impression that Jesus died to forgive our sins, not as an act of political vendetta against the Romans... :? I was wrong, I suppose.

 

 

 

Not in the eyes of the Roman government.