Is God real post your thoughts!

[user1991]

 

@ I get angry when arguing with theists, simply because the concept of faith demands that you believe something without evidence. Whenever I've talked to Christians irl, they always resort to saying well "I believe in God, and it doesn't matter if you disprove my arguments, because I have faith." There is no evidence of a God. Its as simple as this. SUPPLY ME WITH SOME, AND I WILL CONVERT. No joke, just give me the evidence. As long as it is real, credible, testable evidence, then I will have no problem converting.

 

 

 

Let me guess.. you can't? But you believe it anyway, because the concept of faith demands that you do. This, is a hindrance to both the progression of science, and the progression of our understanding of life, consciousness, time, and existence. I apologize if I come across as an arrogant atheist, but this is because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I get angry because it annoys me that still, with the level of technology we have, and the things we can create, we still have people that believe something no matter what the evidence suggests, and that this concept is actually COMMENDED in theistic circles. The arguments you supply just seem so childish, and even if I disproved every single one of them, you would still have "faith." Do you not realise now ridiculous such a notion is?

 

 

 

This is the question I would like answered as well. However, I've simply been told I don't understand faith and been passed by. Stay on topic, theists. I'd like to see a well-reasoned debate out of you. How about some evidence?

 

 

 

Their concept of faith means that they need not give evidence for any claims they make. Thus, when we ask for evidence, that is why they think we don't understand faith.

 

 

 

Of course, to any rationally thinking person, the concept of faith is at best, laughable.

[Dizzle229]

Let me ask something. Why do we argue this? I believe in God, and nothing you guys can say is going to change that, just like anything I say is unlikely to change your mind. So why do we argue this?

[NoMoreDead]

Let me ask something. Why do we argue this? I believe in God, and nothing you guys can say is going to change that, just like anything I say is unlikely to change your mind. So why do we argue this?

 

 

 

Because there is a right and wrong answer.

[user1991]

Let me ask something. Why do we argue this? I believe in God, and nothing you guys can say is going to change that, just like anything I say is unlikely to change your mind. So why do we argue this?

 

 

 

This is where you're wrong.

 

 

 

You supply me with evidence of a God, and I convert. IMMEDIATELY.

 

 

 

That's the difference between you and I. You have faith in something, and by your own admission, if we disproved the entire Bible and even the concept of God (which isn't possible), but say we do, you still wouldn't change your mind. I think this, is the most important issue.

 

 

 

You're absorbed so much into your God thing that you refuse to acknowledge anything else. Yet you live in a world of reason and evidence. If someone told you that your hair was on fire and that even if you proved that it wasn't on fire, they would still believe it was because they had faith in that concept, you'd think they were ridiculous. Why, oh why, do you have to be part of the consensus...

 

 

 

In every other area of discourse, you use reason. Except the God one. I wonder if its a coincidence that it makes you feel good. Hint, hint.

[Dizzle229]

That's the thing. You can't prove it. If you could, that would be a different matter, but you can't. It's like ghosts, it's hard to argue either way.

[Quoi_Tu]

Faith isn't blind for us that are guided by God.

 

 

 

And again you prove you don't understand faith.

 

 

 

Faith is blind. God does not exist in a form that can be seen or comprehended, but people have faith he exists and listens to them. To have faith is to believe in something without evidence. Now, I'm not saying this is a completely bad thing, but people should take care not to let faith cloud their judgement.

[user1991]

That's the thing. You can't prove it. If you could, that would be a different matter, but you can't. It's like ghosts, it's hard to argue either way.

 

 

 

I can't disprove that there is a Unicorn named Jimmy who rules the world living under Los Angeles in a secret, interdimensionary lair.

 

 

 

But without evidence for such a claim, I cannot claim that it is true.

 

 

 

You have no evidence of God. It is as simple as this - give me some evidence and I will convert. Stop the bs, just give me the evidence.

 

 

 

You don't start at a conclusion and then work back to prove it. You don't assume there are fairies, or pink unicorns, or elves, or hobgoblins, yet you can't disprove that they exist.

[user1991]

Faith isn't blind for us that are guided by God.

 

 

 

And again you prove you don't understand faith.

 

 

 

I understand faith. I just discard it because its ridiculous. I know that evidence doesn't mean anything because you have faith, I'm just trying to illustrate how ludicrous that concept is.

 

 

 

I don't honestly understand how you can believe such bs. But then again, you have religious faith, so I guess its normal for you to cherry pick, "interpret", ignore, and finally disregard evidence as you see fit in order to suit your purpose. But to everyone that isn't shrouded by the cloak of religious comfort or need, your philosophy seems both infantile and ridiculous.

[EdgedThesis]

I still stand with the fact that nothing can be proved or disproved.

 

 

 

In Abrahamic religions, God exists outside of the universe he has created.

 

 

 

Our physical laws cannot be applied to him.

 

 

 

You make take this as a religion's attempt to guard their deity from scientists, or that it is the reason why he is so incomprehensible,

 

 

 

but either way, either belief (Atheism/Theism) is impossible to prove.

[user1991]

I still stand with the fact that nothing can be proved or disproved.

 

 

 

In Abrahamic religions, God exists outside of the universe he has created.

 

 

 

Our physical laws cannot be applied to him.

 

 

 

You make take this as a religion's attempt to guard their deity from scientists, or that it is the reason why he is so incomprehensible,

 

 

 

but either way, either belief (Atheism/Theism) is impossible to prove.

 

 

 

Common misconception.

 

 

 

Atheism is different to theism because it's a lack of a belief.

 

 

 

It's like calling someone who isn't an astrologer a non-astrologer and them claiming that that is a profession.

 

 

 

And that fact that we cannot disprove/prove anything is irrelevant. Sure, in this sense you're right, but the whole point of the scientific method is that you look upon the evidence and use it to make assumptions that are logical and based off of that evidence.

 

 

 

There isn't any evidence for a God. If there is, give it to me. Stop [cabbage]ting, just give me the evidence.

 

 

 

I can't prove there isn't a teapot in outer space, but we don't assume there is. We assume something to not be the case until evidence suggests that it is. And there is no evidence for the existence of God. This doesn't matter of course, because the whole concept of faith deals with evidence by removing it from the equation. Its just baffling that people still buy into that stuff. The same people who can operate computers and create pieces of innovative technology also believe that they are right (right doesn't exist, but for the sake of using popular terms....) to hold a belief, that even if proven wrong (when I say wrong, I mean beyond reasonable doubt), they would still hold. This, is not a good thing.

 

 

 

I'm going to start telling Christians that their parents have died, and then if they get angry at me because they found out they're alive, I'm going to tell them that I have faith in them being dead so it doesn't matter what they say because I'll always believe it. Hopefully then they'll realise how stupid they're being.

[EdgedThesis]

Oh, I always thought of Atheism to be belief in the lack of God, not just the lack of belief.

 

 

 

It's fine to not have faith, the idea of God is pretty far fetched.

 

 

 

I was brought to that impression because of how aggressive some atheist speakers were.

 

 

 

v--- I understood that. I acquiesced. That was unneccessary.

[user1991]

Oh, I always thought of Atheism to be belief in the lack of God, not just the lack of belief.

 

 

 

It's fine to not have faith, the idea of God is pretty far fetched.

 

 

 

I was brought to that impression because of how aggressive some atheist speakers were.

 

 

 

Let me just tell you something,

 

 

 

A belief in a unicorn on the moon - A lack of belief in a unicorn on the moon. These are not EQUAL, simply because they're opposite. It doesn't work that way. One is based upon evidence. Have we ever observed a unicorn? No. Is there any evidence to suggest that they have ever existed? No. Is there any evidence to suggest that there is one on the moon? No. But we cannot prove there isn't one. But I must stress, this does not make the two ideas equal.

 

 

 

One is based upon evidence, and one isn't. The same goes for the God thing. You can't believe in the Christian God unless you fully accept that you have to believe in him, even if you were faced with overwhelming evidence that he didn't exist.

 

 

 

For you to claim that this is anything other than irrational, well, would be stupid.

[Kenshinjapan]

If you fall onto the floor, do you expect the ground to be there when you hit it? Well let's say you're blindfolded before you fall to the ground. You don't need to physically see the ground to know you're going to hit.

 

 

 

The same thing can be said about religion. Just because you personally don't see it doesn't make every theist stupid and illogical.

 

 

 

I say faith is not just for the clueless and those who have no belief in science. Perhaps science is just the way God chose to make things run. Face it, if everything ran on magic and fairy dust, then the world world be a pretty dull place for us.

[Lateralus]

If you fall onto the floor, do you expect the ground to be there when you hit it? Well let's say you're blindfolded before you fall to the ground. You don't need to physically see the ground to know you're going to hit.

 

 

 

I think you picked a bad example to explain faith. If you didn't know anything about the ground you wouldn't have any idea what or if you were going to hit. If you had fallen before you might expect to hit the ground, but without being able to see or feel it you'd never know.

[dusqi]

Face it, if everything ran on magic and fairy dust, then the world world be a pretty dull place for us.

 

 

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

[Kenshinjapan]

Face it, if everything ran on magic and fairy dust, then the world world be a pretty dull place for us.

 

 

 

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

 

 

 

Don't even bother insulting any belief/religion. It comes off as nothing but rude.

[aquariusman]

I've chosen to remain agnostic because of the fact that there are so many religions, it's unlikely any of them would be right. The only thing I won't dispute is the existence of beings on a higher level of existence. I am not an atheist because over all the years of our existence, the best answer we have to explain our universe is religion. Logic? If Gods, then logic goes out the window. What cannot be explained by logic is now explained. What can only be explained by incredible improbabilities is now given a tilt in it's favour. There is too much uncertainty in our world to rely on logic to explain things.

 

 

 

I don't know if there is any mention of it, but the best scientific argument I can think of against Religion is String Theory, which doesn't even disprove Religion, if anything it will prove Religion through the disparity of proving String Theory. We could be made of multi-dimensional strings, but those could have been created by a God. Oh, Logic also disproves the Big Bang Theory. There was 'nothing' that exploded into something. According to Science, matter cannot be created out of nothing, so that matter had to come from somewhere. But where did that matter come from, and so on. It's like how God is said to have created himself. He can't create himself if he didn't exist, so that is untrue.

 

 

 

I see a God as a guiding up the evolutionary path, twisting fates in it's favour. I will never know how everything we know was created, nor do I want to. Knowing would give me nothing I could use practically, and that is the kind of knowledge I want: practical, applicable knowledge.

[Woodcut Lvr]

I was born and raised Catholic. After about age 7, I found it hard to believe in God. I didn't challenge it, just chose not to believe. Now, I have my own set of beliefs, which are no more rational than God, yet what I believe.

 

 

 

I'd tell you, but I fear being flammed for it. :|

[mmmcannibalism]

why do people expect someone to produce evidence of God when by the definition of God there wont be any?

 

 

 

before you respond that Im just using my beliefs to justify a lack of evidence, Im not. Really I mean I dont care if someone is atheist or religious or if they worship a plate of spaghetti(okay may worry about their mental health a tad bit there. As long as you are living a decent life I figure your okay off regardless of what God is/isnt in the afterlife or lack there of.

 

 

 

I still hold to my belief in God based on an overly long explanation of how meaningless everything is without an afterlife

[Lateralus]

Oh, Logic also disproves the Big Bang Theory. There was 'nothing' that exploded into something. According to Science, matter cannot be created out of nothing, so that matter had to come from somewhere. But where did that matter come from, and so on. It's like how God is said to have created himself. He can't create himself if he didn't exist, so that is untrue.

 

 

 

The current (I believe) leading explanation for the big bang theory doesn't rely on something coming from nothing. Many of the theories you might read about it won't even state where the explosion came from, and much of the mathematics in big bang theory details the events after the explosion, not where it came from. From what I've read (which could be outdated) the big bang was an explosion from a singularity, and would act like the explosion of a black hole. All logic tells you is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it doesn't forbid an explosion which creates the universe. So what you can deduce is that whatever happened, it wasn't something being created from nothing.

[monkeyboo2]

[hide=]

I've chosen to remain agnostic because of the fact that there are so many religions, it's unlikely any of them would be right. The only thing I won't dispute is the existence of beings on a higher level of existence. I am not an atheist because over all the years of our existence, the best answer we have to explain our universe is religion. Logic? If Gods, then logic goes out the window. What cannot be explained by logic is now explained. What can only be explained by incredible improbabilities is now given a tilt in it's favour. There is too much uncertainty in our world to rely on logic to explain things.

 

 

 

I don't know if there is any mention of it, but the best scientific argument I can think of against Religion is String Theory, which doesn't even disprove Religion, if anything it will prove Religion through the disparity of proving String Theory. We could be made of multi-dimensional strings, but those could have been created by a God. Oh, Logic also disproves the Big Bang Theory. There was 'nothing' that exploded into something. According to Science, matter cannot be created out of nothing, so that matter had to come from somewhere. But where did that matter come from, and so on. It's like how God is said to have created himself. He can't create himself if he didn't exist, so that is untrue.

 

 

 

I see a God as a guiding up the evolutionary path, twisting fates in it's favour. I will never know how everything we know was created, nor do I want to. Knowing would give me nothing I could use practically, and that is the kind of knowledge I want: practical, applicable knowledge.

[/hide]

 

 

 

1. Glad you accept that no religion is right. That holds together well in an argument...

 

 

 

2. Religion is made by man; its scriptures, its ideology and everything, and these are made to suit the religions purpose, not to give the correct answers. It provides answers; so you may say it 'explains what logic cannot (yet) explain' but you should seriously think about if those answers are correct based on where they came from, why they were created, who made them, when, and how did they acquire these so called answers?

 

 

 

Scientology is an example of a very transparent religion. The creator of it made it specifically to make money so many of its so called 'answers' happen to end up in money changing into the Churches hands.

 

 

 

Most religions aren't so easy to decipher as Scientology, they have/had different motives for making their answers.

 

 

 

3. Brush up on your Knowledge of the Big Bang, you seem to have got hold of the very dumbed down version. You could easily learn the full story. You're more than capable.

 

 

 

4. Super String theory being proved either way makes no proof for or against God (atleast not the main religion Gods).

 

 

 

5. In an infinite universe, the chance of any series of rare events is high. Although agreed, we are lucky.

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

 

 

 

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind.

[Big_Stingman]

I'm Mormon, so I believe in God, among a lot of others things too, but this thread is more about God, so I will stick to that topic.

 

 

 

I have a term that many many people converse over (not sure where I picked it up), but I think it went something like this, "If there was no God, there would be no Athiests..." Take from that quote what you like, and infer what you want, just think about it though...

[EdgedThesis]

 

 

 

6. Examples of things that religion has taught you (which Logic could not) that you can use practically?

 

 

 

Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people the conclusion that there is no God.

 

 

 

Logic brings several people to the conclusion that without an afterlife, all human knowledge and memory will be wiped out if we all die.

 

 

 

The atheist wishes to keep other intellectuals alive. Other humans alive.

 

 

 

Logic dictates that we keep our species going.

[J a m e s]

Doesn't it ever make you wonder that you would never have known god or gods existed if a HUMAN BEING hadn't told you that they did?