Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

Ok, besides the fact that 7 billion people don't believe in God (click link to see the number of adherents per each religion) and the fact 16% of the world's population has no religion whatsoever...

 

 

 

There are more non-religious/atheist folks then there are people in the world?

 

 

 

:wall: :wall: :wall:

 

 

 

Anyway... In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first, followed by Sikhism, Hinduism and then Christianity. This, in iteself, is no surprise as the fastest growing areas are the Middle East/Asia. In total number of adherents for each religion, they're all expected to increase with Christianity still garnering the most adherents. Judaism is expected to increase at a rate much less than that of the aforementioned religions.

 

 

 

http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynami ... ources.php

[highlanders]

I think god is the universe, everything that exists. By example, you have awareness only of your life/thoughts, you're not living other people's lives. Well I believe "god" is the sum of all the lives of all the beings, and the awareness of each and every thing that happens in the universe; galaxies, etc. What I mean is that we are all little parts of god, and that all together, we form what we call god. I don't think god is an individual, he is simply the sum of everything that exists, thus he doesn't have a name, he can't talk to you, don't look for him, he's everywhere, etc. I know it's just a theory, and it's like impossible to prove it, but atleast it doesn't go against logic and doesn't require you to believe in anything invisible. If god is everything you can see, well that's just it, no babbling about hell or heaven or a guy with a beard, end of the story.

[aqh88]

I don't see how it matters. Whether god exists or doesn't exist is not going to change how I live my life. I'm still going to do my best to follow what I think is right or wrong and I'm not doing it to avoid some punishment or gain some reward when I die. If it was proven god didn't exist that would not be a reason to go murder and rape people. Just because you aren't getting eternally punished for doing bad things shouldn't be the reason we do the right thing. I find the people who only do good things and help people for the reward they think they'll get when they die very hypocritical and annoying. Some of them I wouldn't even call good people because if they didn't think they'd get something out of it they'd never take the time to help anyone. All their reasons are selfish. Then there are people who do the right thing just because it's in their nature and they don't care whether they get something for it. Now if some of those latter people don't believe in god and god punishes them despite being very good people is that a god you'd want to follow? Not me. Even if god exists and I go to hell for not going to church then I'm going to hell because I do not wish to follow a god that would punish good people just for not worshipping enough. If I live my life the best I can then it shouldn't matter whether there is a god or an afterlife. Whatever the outcome I won't have anything to regret.

 

 

 

So whether god exists or not it's not going to make me behave better, behave worse, or start going to church every sunday. My life remains unchanged and that's why instead of proving to myself whether there is or isn't a god I decided it really doesn't matter. Some people just need something to believe in to get them through life and if that's the type of person you are then fine. Follow your faith as much as you need to make your trouble's tolerable but some don't need that type of faith. I only have to believe things will work out if I try long enough and not that it's because someone else is making it that way.

[BlueLancer]

Ok, besides the fact that 7 billion people don't believe in God (click link to see the number of adherents per each religion) and the fact 16% of the world's population has no religion whatsoever...

 

 

 

There are more non-religious/atheist folks then there are people in the world?

 

 

 

:wall: :wall: :wall:

 

 

 

 

No wonder I can't debate with you, you don't even try to understand the facts I present. How can you have this intellectually "elitist" attitude if you can't even find meanings in neutral expressions? Any reasonable person would see I didn't mean the world has "7 billion atheists".. Or do I need to add emphasis on every second word? I thought I clearly typed, "16% of the world's population has no religion", the "7 billion" figure being the indefinite amount of people who all don't believe in a single God.

 

 

Anyway... In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first, followed by Sikhism, Hinduism and then Christianity. This, in iteself, is no surprise as the fastest growing areas are the Middle East/Asia. In total number of adherents for each religion, they're all expected to increase with Christianity still garnering the most adherents. Judaism is expected to increase at a rate much less than that of the aforementioned religions.

 

 

 

http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynami ... ources.php

 

 

 

The 1 billion hindus, though, aren't going to all convert to christianity or islam. Most of those people will live their lives with their "learned" religion (which they got from their parents), just as you'll most likely be a christian.

 

 

 

Yeah, there are also muslims converting to christianity. In America there are many christians converting to islam as well. Take a look at this man or this woman (Angela Collins). Or the few million christians every year who convert to islam. (Click links for video, those people are totally ordinary white american people with families and jobs, last link is from CNN)

 

 

 

That still doesn't mean most people are willing to change their faith. The hindus believe in multiple divine Gods, and I'm still waiting for wildernessfreelancer's opinion on that.

[Sly_Wizard]

No wonder I can't debate with you, you don't even try to understand the facts I present. How can you have this intellectually "elitist" attitude if you can't even find meanings in neutral expressions? Any reasonable person would see I didn't mean the world has "7 billion atheists".. Or do I need to add emphasis on every second word? I thought I clearly typed, "16% of the world's population has no religion", the "7 billion" figure being the indefinite amount of people who all don't believe in a single God.

 

 

 

I don't even know why I'm going to bother...

 

 

 

First of all, you'll find that I specifically said non-religious/atheist folk. Second of all, don't try to play semantics. It won't work. Of the current 6.7B people on the world, you stated that 7B of them don't believe in God (Not a god, as you now want to change your tune to).

 

 

 

Also, playing your game with your own source, 8% of the world has no religion. Apparently you missed the notes under the 16% which so clearly states "Half of this group is theistic but non-religious". In case you don't understand what that means, I'll help you out:

 

 

 

Theistic = Characterized by a belief in God

 

Non-religious = Not following the teaching of any given religion

 

 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that since 1970 the number of being describing themselves as atheists has, indeed, fallen and is expected to continue to fall clear in the 2020's while the nuber of people denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Of course, the biggest gainer over the same period of time will be Christianity (More specifically, evangelicalism) 'cuz Christianity is just so darn cool! :thumbsup:

[BlueLancer]

 

First of all, you'll find that I specifically said non-religious/atheist folk. Second of all, don't try to play semantics. It won't work. Of the current 6.7B people on the world, you stated that 7B of them don't believe in God (Not a god, as you now want to change your tune to).

 

 

 

 

I'll just take it as you don't have the capacity to read earlier posts. I was replying to wildernessfreelancer, not you, who said "7 billion people believing in a God can't be wrong". Not only the fact that there aren't even 7 billion people in the world, not even nearly "all" people in the world believe in a God.

 

 

 

 

Also, playing your game with your own source, 8% of the world has no religion. Apparently you missed the notes under the 16% which so clearly states "Half of this group is theistic but non-religious".

 

 

 

 

 

Theistic = Characterized by a belief in God

 

Non-religious = Not following the teaching of any given religion

 

 

 

 

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Christians don't believe in "gods". Hindus are polytheistic: "The belief in and worship of multiple gods or deities."

 

 

 

If you are "non-religious", you don't follow any fixed religion, but you can believe in a God/Gods. It doesn't mean "theists have the same belief as christians". A theist could be anyone from a person believing in a single God, to a person believing in a thousand Gods.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that since 1970 the number of being describing themselves as atheists have, indeed, fallen and is expected to continue to fall clear in the 2020's while the nuber of people denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Of course, the biggest gainer over the same period of time will be Christianity (More specifically, evangelicalism) 'cuz Christianity is just so darn cool! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be disappointed to hear your christian websites and forum sources are wrong. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is expected to gain more followers than any other religion. Sure, it wont be the biggest religion in a decade, but by the current growth rates, in 2200 Islam has most likely surpassed Christianity in popularity:

 

 

 

It is less likely that Islam will overtake Christianity in sheer numbers in the mid-range future. Yet in long-range statistical scenarios reaching out to the year 2200 and beyond, it is possible that Islam will surpass Christianity in absolute number of adherents.

 

 

 

Not that popularity has anything to do with how credible a religion is though.. I'm just playing "your" game now, with the statistics of adherents and followers per religion... :lol: (Since you and wildernessfreelancer apparently think that the more people believe in any given story, the more true it becomes)

[Sly_Wizard]

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Christians don't believe in "gods". Hindus are polytheistic: "The belief in and worship of multiple gods or deities."

 

 

 

Irrelevent.

 

 

 

If you are "non-religious", you don't follow any fixed religion, but you can believe in a God/Gods. It doesn't mean "theists have the same belief as christians". A theist could be anyone from a person believing in a single God, to a person believing in a thousand Gods.

 

 

 

...And you realize this doesn't help your argument regarding 16% of the world not believing in God >_>

 

 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be disappointed to hear your christian websites and forum sources are wrong. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is expected to gain more followers than any other religion. Sure, it wont be the biggest religion in a decade, but by the current growth rates, in 2200 Islam has most likely surpassed Christianity in popularity.

 

 

 

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world? Like, uh, no duh. Where have you been? I believe I said this about three or so responses ago:

 

 

 

In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first.

 

 

 

It is less likely that Islam will overtake Christianity in sheer numbers in the mid-range future. Yet in long-range statistical scenarios reaching out to the year 2200 and beyond, it is possible that Islam will surpass Christianity in absolute number of adherents.

 

 

 

It will if population growth in the Middle East continues as it is currently.

 

 

 

Not that popularity has anything to do with how credible a religion is though.. I'm just playing "your" game now, with the statistics of adherents and followers per religion... :lol: (Since you and wildernessfreelancer apparently think that the more people believe in any given story, the more true it becomes)

 

 

 

Note to self: Subtle humor doesn't go over well on the internet.

[darkmage099]

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

 

 

 

 

 

Being an informed Christian that you are, you should know that the Bible was written 300 years after Jesus' death. This means it was already accepted by the Roman Empire.

 

 

 

 

 

There is actually evidence that the Romans wanted to glorify Jesus Christ. In fact, there were many scrolls and documents that called Jesus a normal man with an extraordinary message. These people were dismissed as heretics at the Council of Nicea. There was even a sect called Arianism (or something) where they believed Jesus to be a normal man. There was a strong case at the Council of Nicea, but Rome would not allow their people to follow an ordinary man. Therefore, they glorified him!

 

 

 

It all makes sense if you put it togher...not that I'm implying this is 100% correct.

 

 

 

1. The Bible was techinally started after abraham(old testament), and if your talking about the new testament its 80 years not 300, and the Romans began persecuting the Christian in about 100, therefore whatever you said, no.

 

 

 

2. If your Christian why wouldn't you believe in it? As I always say I'd rather have an atheist who knows what their talking about then a catholic who has no freakin' clue why he believes in God other then his mommy told him (btw I'm maronite catholic).

 

 

 

1. Yeah, too bad the Old Testament has nothing to do with Romans so I'm obviously talking about the New Testament. While the ideas of the New Testament were floating around, it wasn't until 325 AD that the Universal Bible was written with all the "stuff" in it.

 

 

 

The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement.

 

 

 

First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day Iznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first Ecumenical council of the early Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine

 

 

 

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second.

 

As you can see, there was no unison in the Christian doctrine, therefore making it "uncitable".

 

 

 

I am absolutely positive the Romans would never let anything negative about them escape into the Bible. Maybe about their past but not of the Roman Empire itself. Yes, the Romans persecuted the Christians since the time of Paul. However, none of that occurred after there was a united Christian text.

 

 

 

2. What?

[venomai]

Also, playing your game with your own source, 8% of the world has no religion. Apparently you missed the notes under the 16% which so clearly states "Half of this group is theistic but non-religious".

 

You must have misread the chart. It says that, of the 16% of the people who have no religion, 8% of them are theistic. We can assume that the other 8% are atheistic. In any case, all 16% of them are non-religious.

 

 

 

Based on his source, BlueLancer was correct in stating:

 

"16% of the world's population has no religion"

 

 

 

while the nuber of people denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Of course, the biggest gainer over the same period of time will be Christianity (More specifically, evangelicalism)

 

How does Christianity gain from an increase in non-religious beliefs?

[orodr3th]

Darkmage, saying that the "Universal Bible was written with all the "stuff" in it." wasn't written until around 325 AD isn't quite accurate. While it may only have been *compiled* in 325 and accepted as whole, the *individual* books of the Bible were mostly written prior to 150. As for your claim that there was unity in the Church, this is incorrect. The early Church knew what it believed as a whole, the only major disputes were over Arianism (rejection of the divinity of Christ) and Gnosticism (that believer must have a 'hidden knowledge' to attain salvation) and these were resolved comparatively quickly. Arianism only stood as a major problem for the Church for around a hundred years. After that it was thoroughly rejected and only retained a strong presence among the Germanic peoples.

[Korskin]

I don't see how it matters. Whether god exists or doesn't exist is not going to change how I live my life. I'm still going to do my best to follow what I think is right or wrong and I'm not doing it to avoid some punishment or gain some reward when I die.

 

Christianity is not about being a nice guy in order to escape from hell. Though I pretty much agree with what you're saying here:

I find the people who only do good things and help people for the reward they think they'll get when they die very hypocritical and annoying. Some of them I wouldn't even call good people because if they didn't think they'd get something out of it they'd never take the time to help anyone. All their reasons are selfish.

 

However, the Bible says that we'll be rewarded in heaven for our deeds on earth. I don't really like that concept as I think heaven alone is a sufficient reward. But what's important to realize is that we won't get to heaven because we have been good since we've all been bad. It's only due to God's grace and because Jesus died for our sins that we're able to enter heaven.

 

Then there are people who do the right thing just because it's in their nature and they don't care whether they get something for it. Now if some of those latter people don't believe in god and god punishes them despite being very good people is that a god you'd want to follow? Not me. Even if god exists and I go to hell for not going to church then I'm going to hell because I do not wish to follow a god that would punish good people just for not worshipping enough. If I live my life the best I can then it shouldn't matter whether there is a god or an afterlife. Whatever the outcome I won't have anything to regret.

 

The problem with heaven is that it must be completely free from sin in order to be perfect. Regardless of how many good deeds you've done, you'll still be guilty of doing some bad deed. Basically we're all sinners and therefore we can't go to heaven. God punishes evil because he's good, an evil God would accept evil. We can't earn our righteousness by living a good life, the only way to be righteous is through Jesus.

 

So whether god exists or not it's not going to make me behave better, behave worse, or start going to church every sunday. My life remains unchanged and that's why instead of proving to myself whether there is or isn't a god I decided it really doesn't matter. Some people just need something to believe in to get them through life and if that's the type of person you are then fine. Follow your faith as much as you need to make your trouble's tolerable but some don't need that type of faith. I only have to believe things will work out if I try long enough and not that it's because someone else is making it that way.

 

You should do good because it's God's will. He knows what kind of life would be best for us. Therefore he has laws and commands so that we know his will and how to enjoy life at its fullest.

[darkmage099]

Darkmage, saying that the "Universal Bible was written with all the "stuff" in it." wasn't written until around 325 AD isn't quite accurate. While it may only have been *compiled* in 325 and accepted as whole, the *individual* books of the Bible were mostly written prior to 150. As for your claim that there was unity in the Church, this is incorrect. The early Church knew what it believed as a whole, the only major disputes were over Arianism (rejection of the divinity of Christ) and Gnosticism (that believer must have a 'hidden knowledge' to attain salvation) and these were resolved comparatively quickly. Arianism only stood as a major problem for the Church for around a hundred years. After that it was thoroughly rejected and only retained a strong presence among the Germanic peoples.

 

 

 

You do recognize the fact that they had rewritten it, right? How accurate can a rewritten Bible be to the original books that were not bound in the same book? All I'm saying is that the Bible can be questioned because of the fact that it was not compiled and "made official" until 300 or so years after Jesus' death.

[orodr3th]

No Darkmage, unless you can show me some evidence that it was re-written over the hundred or so years between the original manuscripts and the first compilation, I see no reason to believe that it was. With thousands (litterally) of copies of various manuscripts that are incredibly close to the Bible as it is today, I find it quite plausible that it is (largely) intact. One thing to remember is the mindset the copiers of manuscripts had then. Many of the early Christian writers were coming out of the Jewish tradition in which rabbis would copy a manuscript not line by line or word by word, but *letter by letter* (really mind blowing to think about the time it would take) and when coming to the point of copying a reference to God, would stop writing and wash their hands before continuing. I just say that to give you an idea of the reverence and care taken in the manuscripts.

[BlueLancer]

No Darkmage, unless you can show me some evidence that it was re-written over the hundred or so years between the original manuscripts and the first compilation, I see no reason to believe that it was. With thousands (litterally) of copies of various manuscripts that are incredibly close to the Bible as it is today, I find it quite plausible that it is (largely) intact. One thing to remember is the mindset the copiers of manuscripts had then. Many of the early Christian writers were coming out of the Jewish tradition in which rabbis would copy a manuscript not line by line or word by word, but *letter by letter* (really mind blowing to think about the time it would take) and when coming to the point of copying a reference to God, would stop writing and wash their hands before continuing. I just say that to give you an idea of the reverence and care taken in the manuscripts.

 

 

 

The Bible was written by 40 different authors over multiple centuries, naturally it will have some variations and/or contradictions by translation and other issues. But as a whole, the Bible has stayed very largely intact from the original documents and scrolls, as you said. There are so many copies and old documents, it would be very easy to spot a forgery or fake which has been edited for political agendas, etc.

 

 

 

What got accepted in the bible as Canon and what got discarded, though, was the decision of bishops, kings, priests, and different councils, not God or Jesus. For example like darkmage said, the Council of Nicaea (if you are not familiar, click link for details) was the first council to effectively gather all representatives of christendom and decide what's "holy" and what's not, what viewpoints are right and which are correct, 325 years after Jesus' death.

 

 

 

In that sense, it can't be fully said the Bible is inspired by God (even if a God supposedly exists). Bishops and cardinals were often corrupt or rich people who bought their political power with silver and gold, not because they were "inspired by God". Those people, however, got to decide which viewpoints and scrolls should be included and which ones excluded as not being Canon.

[orodr3th]

BlueLancer, I can't agree with you completely on the issue of the Council of Nicaea. As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible is inspired by God. However, I'm not going to argue over that as we would be running around the whole fact/faith circle and probably ending in a flame fest. I'll just give you a couple of things to keep in mind that might change your view on the plausibility of scripture being God-inspired. In 325 AD, although Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman empire as decreed by Constantine, it was still only just coming out its small-underground beginnings. In 325, Church bishops (I can't say this for sure but I do not believe there were Cardinals/full church hierarchy in place at the time of the Council of Nicaea) were hardly in a position to be accruing vast amounts of wealth or political influence. So I wouldn't see much of a case for buying influence to decide canon. When it comes down to it though, it is completely a matter of faith about believing scripture is God-breathed. Hope that made a bit of sense.

 

 

 

-Orodr3th

[Sly_Wizard]

You must have misread the chart. It says that, of the 16% of the people who have no religion, 8% of them are theistic. We can assume that the other 8% are atheistic. In any case, all 16% of them are non-religious.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ...

 

 

 

Check the last page. I addressed this already and I'm getting tired of being a broken record >_>

 

 

 

How does Christianity gain from an increase in non-religious beliefs?

 

 

 

I've an even better question. Why are you making a correlation between an increase in non-religious beliefs an an increase in evangelicalism?

[venomai]

Check the last page. I addressed this already and I'm getting tired of being a broken record >_>

 

Really? Show me the post where you address the matter correctly. :-s

 

 

 

I've an even better question. Why are you making a correlation between an increase in non-religious beliefs an an increase in evangelicalism?

 

I hate to be a broken record, but I'll quote you again:

 

Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that since 1970 the number of being describing themselves as atheists has, indeed, fallen and is expected to continue to fall clear in the 2020's while the nuber of people denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Of course, the biggest gainer over the same period of time will be Christianity (More specifically, evangelicalism) 'cuz Christianity is just so darn cool!

 

 

 

Care to explain your logic?

[warri0r45]

 

The whole broad concept of god is a cop out to me as there's absolutely no way to meaninfully prove or disprove it. All you rely on are what you'd like to assume his characteristics are and faith in your chosen perception of god and to me, the idea that someone can conclude the truth in something based solely on the notion that we think it would be dandy and explain something is nonsense, but that's just me. I'm the kind of guy that requires some sort of answer tested against reality. But yeah, I suppose you can argue against perceptions of god based on a strict interpretation of a holy book.

 

 

 

(1) This is why a belief in God is internal and inexpressible, if you are looking for a way to logically describe a personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s faith or them to tell you why they think their belief is true in this sense, then you will misunderstand this concept. (2) You may regard something which does not reflect the logical world as a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åcop outÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Adventurer]

^

 

Holy crud. Warrior + Satenza pretty much summed up the whole nature of this argument :shock:

 

 

 

Sorry if this seems irrelevant, but I think it gives a bit of direction to exactly what we're arguing about.

[andy_matthews]

I am definetly Atheist. I find it hard to believe that some superior force, (in the case, the "god" you are talking about), could control everything.

[wildernessfreelancer]

Tell that on national TV to the 1 billion hindus (about 1/6th of the world's population) who do believe so. Also, according to your logic, so many people can't just believe in a human creation, therefore it must be true.

 

 

 

That's exactly my POINT. You seem to assume that just because one of the many religions in this world are scientifically proven to be false, you conclude that all religions are false altogether.

 

 

 

You seem to also quote my "irrelevant" posts. Your answer can be found below.

 

 

 

3. It's just amazing what people would do to defend their beliefs, isn't it? You started flaming my beliefs without provocation, just because you think I'm "easy prey". I was just defending my beliefs out of desperation, because I don't think I would come under attack just by posting my beliefs.

 

 

 

If you're looking for my real deal here, then it's found below.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Please don't use my irrelevant posts that you've managed to squeeze out of me.

 

 

 

Now that we have that cleared, listen very carefully.

 

 

 

You seem to think that Hindus also have the right to believe in what's scientifically false. (I'm not being offensive here. BlueLancer seems to be saying that Hindus have gods made out of human imagination.) Listen to this:

 

 

 

In medical science/human psychology, it's been known for ages even small children create imaginary friends and believe they exist... This phenomenon isn't limited to kids though, it also affects adults. Some even have to go to a therapist later on.

 

 

 

So then isn't it logical to say that Hindus have imaginary friends, and carve them onto statues so that they won't forget their imaginary friends (Humans do forget). Later on they forget that the statues they created are their imaginary friends, and instead worship them as gods. Where else can you find "gods" that look like humans/ animals/ hybrids of both? Why, from the human imagination, of course!

 

 

 

In fact, based on BlueLancer's scientific evidence, I can go on to say that any religion that has statues representing "gods"/worship statues as "gods" are false, since there is scientific evidence to prove against their existence.

 

 

 

Now, are you (BlueLancer), going to try debunking every religion that has the concept of God, based on scientific evidence? I suggest you try doing that in alphabetical order. But, hey, why not try debunk the easiest religions first? Oh, I forgot, I just did that for you.

 

 

 

So, let's try skipping to the hardest to debunk, shall we? Say, the concept of god being a singular, invisible super-entity, which is found in Christianity/Islam. The fact is.... science can't prove nor disprove this concept of god. We could then assume that it's a possibility.

 

 

 

The closest as it can get for this type of god to be related with science, is by using Quantum Physics : The Indeterminate State. Since science can't prove or disprove this god concept, we classify it as being indeterminate. Think of the "cat in the box" experiment, you can neither tell if the cat is alive or dead until you observe it. So, let's put it this way:

 

Existent l-----------------------------------------l Non-existent

 

God's existence, Indeterminate.

 

 

 

Faith, is what pushes God into the existent zone. Without faith, God won't be in an indeterminate state for long, as it is slowly being pulled into the non-existent zone as time passes by, as there is no evidence of it being existent.

 

 

 

 

 

I know, I know. You said it before :

 

 

 

You can't prove God with science.And you never will.

 

 

 

The thing is, science can't prove what happened before the Big Bang, either. And, surprise, surprise... scientists never will. So, logic tells me that :

 

 

 

1. God can't be proven by science, and it will never be.

 

2. What happened before the Big Bang can't be proven by science, and it never will be.

 

3. By using their relation, that both can never be proven with science, then it's possible to say:

 

God created the Big Bang in the first place.

 

 

 

So, it's a win-win situation. You saying God can't be proven by science, and I saying there's a possibility God exists (and that can't be proven by science). This post agrees on both sides.

 

 

 

Questions and comments on this post are allowed and welcomed. 8-)

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

if the christian god is real, we do not have free will.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

(4) Way over my head, sorry, this whole paragraph.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with much of that, but if you think I'd forfeit arguing a point just because it's god we're talking about and he's completely immune to logic, then sorry, I don't think I'll do that. I'll argue a point where I see fit. It may lead down a dead end, but that's the price I'll pay.

 

 

 

 

 

In the final paragraph I was arguing against your belief that we can not prove God in a meaningful way. There are, in my opinion, two problems with your analysis; the first is simply that we have agreed that God can not be proven by any rational and therefore universal means. This leads onto the assumption I am going to make about what you meant by meaningful. I assume you mean that an inability to prove God in a meaningful way is due to the fact we can not prove God in universal way, and it is very much an internal and subjective belief. I take from this that you are placing more meaning in what is universal than what is individual.

 

 

 

 

 

That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God.

[Rebdragon]

That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God.

 

Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something.

 

 

 

There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P .

[venomai]

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer

 

]An example : What happened before the Big Bang theory. No one knows for sure the answer to that. Well then' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

And what was before God?

 

 

 

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer

 

]In fact' date=' based on BlueLancer's scientific evidence, I can go on to say that any religion that has statues representing "gods"/worship statues as "gods" are false, since there is scientific evidence to prove against their existence.[/quote']

 

I didn't find anything in BlueLancer's "scientific evidence" that disproves the existence of gods that were carved into statues.

 

 

 

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer

 

]So' date=' let's try skipping to the hardest to debunk, shall we? Say, the concept of god being a singular, invisible super-entity, which is found in Christianity/Islam. The fact is.... science can't prove nor disprove this concept of god. We could then assume that it's a possibility.[/quote']

 

Currently, science can't prove/disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. We should assume that it too is another possibility. Really, we should assume that anything is possible.

 

 

 

This is where belief comes in. We can assume that the FSM exists, but do we really want to believe it? Or, more importantly, why should we change our lives based on that belief/assumption?

 

 

 

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer

 

]The thing is' date=' science can't prove what happened before the Big Bang, either. And, surprise, surprise... scientists never will.[/quote']

 

I'm sure they will, in time. Nobody knows what the future holds in store for us.

 

The big bang is just a theory, and it may very well prove to be incorrect. Already new theories are coming out as possible alternatives to the classic Big Bang theory, such as the Cyclic model.

 

 

 

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer

 

]By using their relation' date=' that both can never be proven with science, then it's possible to say:

 

God created the Big Bang in the first place.[/quote']

 

Yes, it is possible to say that, as you are just theorizing. :)

 

While we are on the subject of possibilities, it's possible that tomorrow the Flying Spaghetti Monster will materialize and destroy New York with His noodly appendages. Perhaps it will happen, perhaps it won't. :-w

 

 

 

There's really no point in arguing on the existence of God with "reason" and "science". Let's go back to personal beliefs and experiences, which tend to make a lot more sense in a God debate.