Do you believe in God?

[Strittan]

No, I found a video that explained what I was trying to say about the infinite regress part. If you actually paid attention you would see that God is a logical candidate to explain origin.

Hey, we get it. You're not gonna give science a serious go, and we're fine with that. But please, do not try and prove God's existence, because no matter how hard you try, you will not succeed.

Nobody on this earth can prove the existence of God, and that's a fact.

 

[TankAss95]

Hey, we get it. You're not gonna give science a serious go, and we're fine with that. But please, do not try and prove God's existence, because no matter how hard you try, you will not succeed.

Nobody on this earth can prove the existence of God, and that's a fact.

I never said that anyone could absolutely prove Gods existence, but to me I found that video basically proof. I am here to support my beliefs, that's all.

 

[SkateNj]

-tank
Why do you speak as if you know god himself? I will watch the video later as im in school currently

But i dont really think he exists. Especially the christian belief of creationism. The bible doesnt speak of dinoaurs and other aincent animals being created before humans. How does that all knowing being say everything was created at one point whens its obvious animals have evovled?

 

[TankAss95]

-tank
Why do you speak as if you know god himself?

Because I do, along with any other Christian.

 

[Moontallico]

Because I do, along with any other Christian.

Oh, God! Noo comments...
That was just too...
Bah! I can't restrain myself from commenting this one.

Seriously? You do know him?
Like I asked you before, have you met him or heard his voice?
If so how does he look like or how does his voice sound like?
Sheesh...
And it's a him again? After someone already said it was shapeless, or it didn't have a gender?
God damn!

 

[Sach]

Didn't drastically change the course of history forever? So we're going to forget completely about all history that isn't Western history? Islam is as much a part of that history as Christianity is. And Judaeism is more influential, having spawned both.

You are assuming that your perspective on this whole thing which basically looks at religions in a pseudo-psychological/evolutionary way is the correct one. For example, to say that Christianity and Islam exist because Judaeism existed first? Ok.

The biblical flood (oops... forgot... borrowed myth).

This is a perfect example, and a tacky response in a so-called 'intellectual' discussion.

Mohammed certainly changed the course of history. Gautama Buddha did. Confucius did. Don't confuse your cultural millieu with the totality of human experience.

If by "cultural millieu" you mean the current global state of the historical impact of Christianity compared to the others you mentioned, then I am not confused.

God has, in olden times, had no problems with turning people into pillars of salt, razing cities to the ground, sending his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egyptian households, causing global floods, raising the dead, or allowing his prophets and representatives to walk on water or be translated directly to heaven.

I'd call an observable and concrete example of any of the above verifiable evidence.

Except that if the observable evidence was anything other than your own eyesight you still wouldn't believe it.


The fact is, there exists plenty of evidence supporting the validity of Christianity. Where your arrogance occurs is in the fact that much of it doesn't fit the mold that you personally are asking it to in order for you to be truly convinced of its authenticity. That in itself is fine. However, you are also contradictory in that you claim to be taking an open-minded and intellectual approach to a matter concerning the divine, transcendent, and infinite, yet still limit those things to your personal mold of scientific observation. Not only does that not make a lot of sense when concerning the transcendent, it's also arrogant to assume for the rest of existence that your approach is conclusive.

 

[Moontallico]

The fact is, there exists plenty of evidence supporting the validity of Christianity. Where your arrogance occurs is in the fact that much of it doesn't fit the mold that you personally are asking it to in order for you to be truly convinced of its authenticity. That in itself is fine. However, you are also contradictory in that you claim to be taking an open-minded and intellectual approach to a matter concerning the divine, transcendent, and infinite, yet still limit those things to your personal mold of scientific observation. Not only does that not make a lot of sense when concerning the transcendent, it's also arrogant to assume for the rest of existence that your approach is conclusive.

Why don't you also see the other way around?

The fact is, there exists plenty of evidence supporting the validity of Science. Where your arrogance occurs is in the fact that much of it doesn't fit the mold that you personally are asking it to in order for you to be truly convinced of its authenticity. That in itself is fine. However, you are also contradictory in that you claim to be taking an open-minded and intellectual approach to a matter concerning the science, yet still limit those things to your personal mold of christianity observation. Not only does that not make a lot of sense when concerning the science, it's also arrogant to assume for the rest of existence that your approach is conclusive.

See how it also fits and it's true?

 

[Sach]

Why don't you also see the other way around?

The fact is, there exists plenty of evidence supporting the validity of Science. Where your arrogance occurs is in the fact that much of it doesn't fit the mold that you personally are asking it to in order for you to be truly convinced of its authenticity. That in itself is fine. However, you are also contradictory in that you claim to be taking an open-minded and intellectual approach to a matter concerning the science, yet still limit those things to your personal mold of christianity observation. Not only does that not make a lot of sense when concerning the science, it's also arrogant to assume for the rest of existence that your approach is conclusive.

See how it also fits and it's true?

Sorry, but I had a laugh at this. I would never say that science is not valid, although by its own self-prescribed definition it is severely handicapped when attempting to discuss reasons for "why", or when dealing with anything of a godly and transcendental nature.

I believe that science supports the possibility of a one true god, and you can look through my posts to see where I have done so with a degree of thought.

 

[Moontallico]

Sorry, but I had a laugh at this. I would never say that science is not valid, although by its own self-prescribed definition it is severely handicapped when attempting to discuss reasons for "why", or when dealing with anything of a godly and transcendental nature.

I believe that science supports the possibility of a one true god, and you can look through my posts to see where I have done so with a degree of thought.

What's so laughable about this?
So is the "divine" version very handicapped...
And yes, you would. Don't tell me that you agree with the evolution term...
I know you don't, therefore, it's not valid for you.
My thought on the evolution is somewhat based on the human babies insticictive way of walking. The way they crawl resembles, to me at least, the primal walk of many 4 legged animals. Isn't that animalistic and therefore conected to the evolution theory? That's a scientific proof of the evolution to me.

And once again, why only one true God? There could exist many more if science could actually prove it.
And how could science even prove the existence of a God? No I wont go back 256 pages looking for your topics that are scatered all over. But please, do reply it and explain. I'm interested in knowing.

 

[TankAss95]

Oh, God! Noo comments...
That was just too...
Bah! I can't restrain myself from commenting this one.

Seriously? You do know him?
Like I asked you before, have you met him or heard his voice?
If so how does he look like or how does his voice sound like?
Sheesh...
And it's a him again? After someone already said it was shapeless, or it didn't have a gender?
God damn!

I know God through prayer and studying the Bible. God is available to those who seek him.
And he is referred to as being male because that's the way he was represented in the Bible. It isn't a big deal.

 

[dylansan]

Sorry, but I had a laugh at this. I would never say that science is not valid, although by its own self-prescribed definition it is severely handicapped when attempting to discuss reasons for "why", or when dealing with anything of a godly and transcendental nature.

I believe that science supports the possibility of a one true god, and you can look through my posts to see where I have done so with a degree of thought.

You can't have both a scientific and a "transcendental" philosophy. They're fundamentally incompatible.

A scientific viewpoint means accepting things only when there's evidence to support them. A transcendental one means accepting things even when there is no evidence. Pick one. Because you keep saying all your beliefs are supported by evidence and then that science is somehow limited because it only accepts things supported by evidence... That wouldn't limit science unless you admit your beliefs aren't supported.

 

[Strittan]

I know God through prayer and studying the Bible. God is available through people's imaginations.

Fixed.

 

[Moontallico]

I know God through prayer and studying the Bible. God is available to those who seek him.
And he is referred to as being male because that's the way he was represented in the Bible. It isn't a big deal.

No, you don't know God through prayer because it doesn't talk to you, you want to talk to it. That's what prayer is. And the bible is just wrong, so what ever's in that book just can't be believed (by me) and many others who've also studied the bible. It just has too many mistakes for a "holy book"
And God is wanted as a male because of the older religions, which were practiced in Jeruslem or Iran, which don't take the woman in consideration. Easly seen by the way they're treated there. Alá was translated to christianism as a male as well. Stupidly each religions have the same God, but fight over it, as if it was diferent... :eyeroll:

 

[Dennisch]

Fixed.

And when, during a prayer, a voice is talking back to you, it's time to see the doctor.

 

[Moontallico]

And when, during a prayer, a voice is talking back to you, it's time to see the doctor.

I lolled

 

[Sach]

What's so laughable about this?

What's laughable is the absurdity of the words you are putting into my mouth. I do not for one second question the validity of scientific observations... as we understand them. For example...

And yes, you would. Don't tell me that you agree with the evolution term...
I know you don't, therefore, it's not valid for you.

I honestly don't know what you mean by the wording, "evolution term". Again, if you will check my posts you will see that I stated very clearly in the evolution thread that I do not believe that creation in Genesis is intended to be taken literally, because the bible also says that "For God a thousand years are like a day, and a day like a thousand years". I also do not deny that you can breed out species in a lab on the macro-level. Even genetically engineered foods are doing this by our own hand. Whether or not that is truly an evolutionary thing is debatable, but I don't deny that organisms can change characteristics through breeding.

However, I think that people are just looking for a quick fix to a larger question when it comes to evolution. While it does set up a convenient and seemingly logical theory for explaining some things about the history of life on Earth, the evidence is lacking (Where have I heard this before...?) for it to really be conclusive concerning the history of life on earth, and especially the rest of the goings on in the universe. People are so quick to resolve God away because they believe that because there are things they observe to be true about evolution, it must be conclusive. But that assumes many other things along with it which are still very much unknown.

Evolution offers absolutely no explanation into how the laws of physics and the universe came into existence. I personally do not believe that a 'bang' can create the constant of gravity, the golden proportion, the fibonacci sequence, the concept of Pi, etc., etc. And I also do not personally believe that 'certain conditions' that were hypothetically proposed to be available at the Earth's inception could lead to the complexities we see in all forms of systems on this planet, and the way that they all balance each other. Nor do I think it can account for the complexity of information found in DNA, RNA, or the elusive complexities of the brain itself. People rest these assumptions on the concept of infinity, which they will only grant toward theories such as infinite numbers of multiverses, etc., but never God... The concept of infinity is also observed in mathematics (another principle of reality that I don't attribute to a 'bang'), and because this concept is already readily observable, only a fool would also say then that it is a stretch to assume that God had to be created by anything else, and that the possibility of one true author of everything, that has always existed and that needs nothing, can't also be true.

And once again, why only one true God? There could exist many more if science could actually prove it.

Please read my other posts. It's easier if you just search my profile statistics. I've already answered this... but in short: The possibility of one true God can exist because the concept of absolute truth already exists. An absolute truth can only be black and white. It is the thing that people like Stephen Hawking and all scientists are searching for: the one truth of everything. They are looking for the one answer. I believe the possibility of one true God to be much more likely than an alternate possibility because the innate ideas of right and wrong cannot simply be explained away as an evolutionary device, and are constantly mulled over by every human being. Why? Because the concept of absolute truth does exist, and every being seems to have a connection to it.

And how could science even prove the existence of a God?

I hear this time and time and time again, from people like yourself who are trying to use science to dis-prove the existence of God. Remember when you tried to re-word my reply in your previous post to favor the validity of science concerning the existence of God?

Let me restate what I have said several times. From a logical perspective, only a fool would attempt to test the validity of spiritual and transcendental matters with a scientific method that has no means to do so. Jesus did not claim to be earthly. He claimed to be of the spirit, and you can't test his claims with science. Any rebuttal you could attempt to propose with science is instantly moot because you are basically using inferior technology, as offensive as that may sound to your belief that science produces every finite answer.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

And when, during a prayer, a voice is talking back to you, it's time to see the doctor.

Yes. Most likely a personality disorder or something of the sort.

 

[huskeR32]

Evolution offers absolutely no explanation into how the laws of physics and the universe came into existence. I personally do not believe that a 'bang' can create the constant of gravity, the golden proportion, the fibonacci sequence, the concept of Pi, etc., etc. And I also do not personally believe that 'certain conditions' that were hypothetically proposed to be available at the Earth's inception could lead to the complexities we see in all forms of systems on this planet, and the way that they all balance each other. Nor do I think it can account for the complexity of information found in DNA, RNA, or the elusive complexities of the brain itself. People rest these assumptions on the concept of infinity, which they will only grant toward theories such as infinite numbers of multiverses, etc., but never God... The concept of infinity is also observed in mathematics (another principle of reality that I don't attribute to a 'bang'), and because this concept is already readily observable, only a fool would also say then that it is a stretch to assume that God had to be created by anything else, and that the possibility of one true author of everything, that has always existed and that needs nothing, can't also be true.

It's not supposed to! The theory of evolution is only supposed to explain one thing. Can you guess what it is? That's right! The evolution of living species! Period. End of story.

Theories about the laws of physics, and about universal origin, and gravity, and so on are all separate theories.

You see, science doesn't throw one umbrella over everything and say it was all created by the same force/event. You know who does that? Theists. "God did it" covers everything for you.

Others choose to look at everything that exists separately, and try to find the answers to each question separately.

The theory of evolution answers but one of those questions, not all of them. If you're going to argue against a theory, you should at least understand said theory.

 

[GTP_Remo]

Here's my personal opinion.... God is the creation of man. I believe man created god(s), religion(s) because "we" needed some sort explination of how(why) we exist.

No I don't believe in a god , and religion is just a means to control the masses.

 

[Sach]

It's not supposed to! The theory of evolution is only supposed to explain one thing. Can you guess what it is? That's right! The evolution of living species! Period. End of story.

You just restated the point I was trying to make. 💡 People say there is no God "because of evidences pertaining to evolution", but they don't leave room for God's fingerprint of design/intention in the other areas of reality.

You see, science doesn't throw one umbrella over everything and say it was all created by the same force/event. You know who does that? Theists. "God did it" covers everything for you.

I feel like you think you've caught me in something here, but I've never said "God did it", and never thrown an umbrella over the whole thing as you have said. In fact, most of the skeptics here are quite prejudiced toward theists. On the contrary, despite the statement you've made about science's lack of an umbrella for the explanation of reality, the skeptics always seem to say to the theists, "What about science?". That was the point I'm making, and you are agreeing with. I thank you for the confirmation though.

Others choose to look at everything that exists separately, and try to find the answers to each question separately.

Yet those 'others' have a nasty habit of one-subject responses to the idea of theism: "science".

The theory of evolution answers but one of those questions, not all of them. If you're going to argue against a theory, you should at least understand said theory.

You just put words into my mouth. Where did I ever suggest that I believe evolution is trying to answer all of the questions? I never did, nor do I believe it can do so. What I actually did say is that again, skeptics have this nasty habit of trying to disprove God's involvement in the rest of reality's design just because they think they've figured out that he didn't have to play a role in evolution's unfolding, one minor aspect of the universe, and one that is with countless unknown variables.

 

[Moontallico]

What's laughable is the absurdity of the words you are putting into my mouth. I do not for one second question the validity of scientific observations... as we understand them. For example...

Uh? I was asking what's laughable of what I had written before. It wasn't a word into your mouth, but out of mine. I did that to show that it can also be the other way around.
And you don't validate science in totally, as I showed you before (and you didn't understand) because you don't accept the evolution term which, by the way, I meant evolution theory. My mistake, sorry.

I honestly don't know what you mean by the wording, "evolution term". Again, if you will check my posts you will see that I stated very clearly in the evolution thread that I do not believe that creation in Genesis is intended to be taken literally, because the bible also says that "For God a thousand years are like a day, and a day like a thousand years". I also do not deny that you can breed out species in a lab on the macro-level. Even genetically engineered foods are doing this by our own hand. Whether or not that is truly an evolutionary thing is debatable, but I don't deny that organisms can change characteristics through breeding.

So, how should the creation in Genesis be taken as? It still doesn't make sense that it cuts so much info on it. Unless it's just "fast fowarding" to the human era, but still the "time conversion" of 1 day=1000 years isn't coherent in any way to the actual timeline and it's events. But anyway, it just totally proves that the bible doesn't make sense and contradicts itself a lot of times, making it not reliable at all (informationwise), and to me (at least) useless.

However, I think that people are just looking for a quick fix to a larger question when it comes to evolution. While it does set up a convenient and seemingly logical theory for explaining some things about the history of life on Earth, the evidence is lacking (Where have I heard this before...?) for it to really be conclusive concerning the history of life on earth, and especially the rest of the goings on in the universe.

Yea, true. But it's for every single explanation.

People are so quick to resolve God away because they believe that because there are things they observe to be true about evolution, it must be conclusive. But that assumes many other things along with it which are still very much unknown.

Now, that I don't agree with. It depends on each persons beliefs, and bringing what I had done before, the replacement of the christianity words with science, that also applies here. Depending on the beliefs, people can also be quick to resolve Science away because they believe that because there are things they observe to be true about God's actions, it must be conclusive too. But that assumes many other things along with it which are still very much unknown. It does too apply.

Evolution offers absolutely no explanation into how the laws of physics and the universe came into existence. I personally do not believe that a 'bang' can create the constant of gravity, the golden proportion, the fibonacci sequence, the concept of Pi, etc., etc. And I also do not personally believe that 'certain conditions' that were hypothetically proposed to be available at the Earth's inception could lead to the complexities we see in all forms of systems on this planet, and the way that they all balance each other. Nor do I think it can account for the complexity of information found in DNA, RNA, or the elusive complexities of the brain itself.

Because it's a diferent subject. The Big Bang relates to that, not evolution. Both the Big Bang and evolution aren't completly related. And also, there are more theories to the existence of the universe other than the Big Bang.

But how can you not believe (that a 'bang' can create the constant of gravity, the golden proportion, the fibonacci sequence, the concept of Pi, etc., etc.) but believe that there's a thing (suposedly someone) made all that happen? That's all a bunch of nothings to me because they just can't be proven, because we can't know at all! I just don't believe in anything of that, science or relious explanations. It's all just supositions.

People rest these assumptions on the concept of infinity, which they will only grant toward theories such as infinite numbers of multiverses, etc., but never God... The concept of infinity is also observed in mathematics (another principle of reality that I don't attribute to a 'bang'), and because this concept is already readily observable, only a fool would also say then that it is a stretch to assume that God had to be created by anything else, and that the possibility of one true author of everything, that has always existed and that needs nothing, can't also be true.

And again it's reversible, because some others dont' rest their assumptions on the concept of infinity, and allways on God.

Please read my other posts. It's easier if you just search my profile statistics. I've already answered this... but in short: The possibility of one true God can exist because the concept of absolute truth already exists. An absolute truth can only be black and white. It is the thing that people like Stephen Hawking and all scientists are searching for: the one truth of everything. They are looking for the one answer. I believe the possibility of one true God to be much more likely than an alternate possibility because the innate ideas of right and wrong cannot simply be explained away as an evolutionary device, and are constantly mulled over by every human being. Why? Because the concept of absolute truth does exist, and every being seems to have a connection to it.

Alright, thanks for the tip.
Anyway. That doesn't make sense. Two gods creating the universe can be an absolute truth. It doesn't stop it from being one truth.
It's like: there are two blue berries iogurts in my fridge. That's an absolute truth/answer.
Oh, and the evolutionary theory also have loose ends not only the creationist one. Though not as much mulled, it also has them, thus not being fully believeable, hence why I don't believe in it either.

I hear this time and time and time again, from people like yourself who are trying to use science to dis-prove the existence of God. Remember when you tried to re-word my reply in your previous post to favor the validity of science concerning the existence of God?

Let me restate what I have said several times. From a logical perspective, only a fool would attempt to test the validity of spiritual and transcendental matters with a scientific method that has no means to do so. Jesus did not claim to be earthly. He claimed to be of the spirit, and you can't test his claims with science. Any rebuttal you could attempt to propose with science is instantly moot because you are basically using inferior technology, as offensive as that may sound to your belief that science produces every finite answer.

Nop. My point was that both sides can say the same about each side. Just depends on the prespective.
And again, of course we can't test his claims, without a time machine or what ever, to let us re-experience the past, Jesus claims, the creation or a lucky event that brought space existence, or anything in the past can't be surelly proven.
So, why believe only on a single supposed truth, that we just idealized, since we can't know anything at all occured in the past?

 

[huskeR32]

Where did I ever suggest that I believe evolution is trying to answer all of the questions?

Evolution offers absolutely no explanation into how the laws of physics and the universe came into existence. I personally do not believe that a 'bang' can create the constant of gravity, the golden proportion, the fibonacci sequence, the concept of Pi, etc., etc. And I also do not personally believe that 'certain conditions' that were hypothetically proposed to be available at the Earth's inception could lead to the complexities we see in all forms of systems on this planet, and the way that they all balance each other. Nor do I think it can account for the complexity of information found in DNA, RNA, or the elusive complexities of the brain itself. People rest these assumptions on the concept of infinity, which they will only grant toward theories such as infinite numbers of multiverses, etc., but never God... The concept of infinity is also observed in mathematics (another principle of reality that I don't attribute to a 'bang'), and because this concept is already readily observable, only a fool would also say then that it is a stretch to assume that God had to be created by anything else, and that the possibility of one true author of everything, that has always existed and that needs nothing, can't also be true.

If you don't think that evolution is trying to answer these questions, then what is the point of this statement?

You just restated the point I was trying to make. 💡 People say there is no God "because of evidences pertaining to evolution", but they don't leave room for God's fingerprint of design/intention in the other areas of reality.

If there really was a fingerprint, I for one would be more than willing to make room in my beliefs for it.

And IMO, it's a huge misinterpretation to say that not believing in god is due strictly to evolution. For me, anyways, evolution plays a very small role in my religious opinions.

I feel like you think you've caught me in something here, but I've never said "God did it", and never thrown an umbrella over the whole thing as you have said. In fact, most of the skeptics here are quite prejudiced toward theists. On the contrary, despite the statement you've made about science's lack of an umbrella for the explanation of reality, the skeptics always seem to say to the theists, "What about science?". That was the point I'm making, and you are agreeing with. I thank you for the confirmation though.

I'm not approaching this discussion with the hope to catch anybody in anything. I don't engage in this debate to play mind games, or for kicks. I'm just trying to be part of a serious conversation. And as I said in the beginning of the post, your statement seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me. I was just responding to what you said.

And I think you're way off the mark by interpreting "science" as an umbrella term. Unless you mean that "science" encompasses a number of independently-derived theories, many of which are heavily supported by evidence and many of which make the existence of god seem unlikely. But it's definitely not used in the manner of "the theory of science proves god isn't real." That's not the way the word is used. I suggest that many theists interpret it that way for two reasons:
-They don't understand, or even know about, many theories, so they can do nothing other that treat it as a single idea
-They're so used to having the same answer for everything (god), they assume atheists are arguing the same way

Yet those 'others' have a nasty habit of one-subject responses to the idea of theism: "science".

See above. If the term "science" is used, it's simply a way to bring up a number of different theories that contradict religion. Do we really need to list them all off every time? That would be cumbersome to say the least.

 

[Sach]

I really don't know how to say these things any clearer. You are constantly replying to things I am not saying myself.

If you don't think that evolution is trying to answer these questions, then what is the point of this statement?

Because I have encountered many skeptics that have used evolution as a blanket statement to dismiss God in the manner that I spoke of. It was used as an example, not as my own way of thinking.

And IMO, it's a huge misinterpretation to say that not believing in god is due strictly to evolution.

And again, you are agreeing with me. I'm glad that you think outside of that box that so many others aren't willing to look beyond.

And I think you're way off the mark by interpreting "science" as an umbrella term.

I am not doing so. I am saying that other people do this all the time, and they believe they are disproving God with such a limited perspective. I hope that we're finally clear on these things.

 

[Moontallico]

Here's my personal opinion.... God is the creation of man. I believe man created god(s), religion(s) because "we" needed some sort explination of how(why) we exist.

No I don't believe in a god , and religion is just a means to control the masses.

This.^^^
It's all a suposition. Nothing else.
We're naturally curious, and we must find answers for everything. When we can't, we idealize and try to find by all means, even imaginary. What ever gives us an answer.
It was, is and allways will be like that.
The exemple of us creating other gods, and eventual disbelief is what makes me be say that this current christian god, also known as alá in other religions, was also created just to obtain answers at all costs.
Just most probably wont be disbelieved because it's a neutral, and is a god for something that we can't get an answer for. Unlike the Greek/Roman gods which could be disproven.
Science also makes it's own supositions on this matter, but it's only that, nothing else, because the begining just can't be proven, along with many other things in the past. We just can't find an absolute truth with our current knowledge.
"All I know is that I know nothing"
This just says it all.

 

[huskeR32]

I really don't know how to say these things any clearer. You are constantly replying to things I am not saying myself.

Point taken, but...

Because I have encountered many skeptics that have used evolution as a blanket statement to dismiss God in the manner that I spoke of. It was used as an example, not as my own way of thinking.

You've been treating me basically the same way, assuming that I subscribe to many of these generalities that you see in other atheists. I don't.

I am not doing so. I am saying that other people do this all the time, and they believe they are disproving God with such a limited perspective. I hope that we're finally clear on these things.

Throughout this thread, I have given no other reason for my atheistic leanings other than the lack of evidence in favor of a deity. Anybody who over-relies on any one theory (evolution or otherwise) as active proof against god is having a different argument that I am.

In the end, I was arguing against your posts, which seemed to be worded as if they were your own thoughts. I can't read your mind, so this to me is the only way to respond.

Anyways,

 

[sumbrownkid]

Praise be to the almighty Allah.

People get nervous whenever I say that with friends as a joke.

I think religion should remain a personal matter and not a public one. And I also think religion and science can go together.

Atheists can keep doing their thing, and I'll do mine. As long as we don't try to stuff our beliefs onto someone else.

 

[SkateNj]

Fixed.

I love you.

Sach- If you talk about the lack of proof on the atheist side then what proof is there on the theist side? That an invisible magician can create whole worlds and galaxies with the snap of a finger?

You also say a bang cant cause gravity and other stuff. Because it didnt. It theoretically let out the massive amount of mass that was capable of doing that.

 

[huskeR32]

Praise be to the almighty Allah.

People get nervous whenever I say that with friends as a joke.

I think religion should remain a personal matter and not a public one. And I also think religion and science can go together.

Atheists can keep doing their thing, and I'll do mine. As long as we don't try to stuff our beliefs onto someone else.

Fair enough. I can get behind this. But if that's the case, what's the point of coming in this thread? Obviously people in here do want to have a public conversation about it. If that's not your speed, then just avoid the thread. You don't need to come in here just to tell us you don't want to be a part of the conversation.

 

[Sach]

You've been treating me basically the same way, assuming that I subscribe to many of these generalities that you see in other atheists. I don't.

Well first off, it has never been my intention to make any singular participant in this discussion the brunt of our responses, so please don't feel that way. I am quite aware that peoples' identities are quite varied and dynamic. In fact, I think that I would be able to sit down with a beer and get along with just about anyone here quite easily.

I have viewed my own beliefs from both sides of the argument many times over, and I'm not here attempting to proclaim anything other than my own observable truths based on my experiences with both the observable/physical/testable and the spiritual/transcendent/divine, which I am quite fine with believing in even among a host of atheists. I'm more concerned with the spread of information, and evangelism is not my goal here. I also know that undoubtedly these kinds of forum discussions do not necessarily ever convert anyone's thinking. And with the state of Christianity's diverse successes and shortcomings in today's world, it's no wonder that so many people have issue with it. I also know that religious beliefs are not the end of all things human. We have many other things in common to draw upon. But I do enjoy engaging in within the same scientific/philosophical platform to show that those things that people use to disprove the existence of a God can also be interpreted the other way, and that believing that something can exist as such is not even remotely crazy, but logically expected.



However I do have one thing to say about your comment, which is that although you wouldn't logically expect an atheist to give any non-scientific/physical/observable reasons or experiences for why they "aren't convinced" that God plays a part in their lives (they're atheists, after all), I don't think I've read a single atheistic response in this discussion that even remotely addresses the person's individual experiences with spirituality. Now, although one wouldn't immediately expect to hear these kinds of spiritual responses/experiences from atheists, one might also find it a speculative thing for any self-proclaimed atheist to make statements attempting to assert any amount validity regarding matters they do not invest any time toward investigating. Yet, their voices are often quite loud whilst among their many adherents. Again, not directed solely at one person. It's just a 'thing' that does ultimately happen in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Sach]

I love you.

Sach- If you talk about the lack of proof on the atheist side then what proof is there on the theist side? That an invisible magician can create whole worlds and galaxies with the snap of a finger?

Hello, SkateNj. I have offered what I have deemed to be proof for theism several times in previous sections of this discussion. I don't have time to restate everything for every person who enters the discussion subsequent to those statements, so please take a look through the thread thoroughly if you would really like to hear my thoughts. By thoroughly I also mean: Please don't repeat someone else's disagreement with what I've said, and which I may have already offered a reply to in later postings.

You also say a bang cant cause gravity and other stuff. Because it didnt. It theoretically let out the massive amount of mass that was capable of doing that.

Yes, but how did mass gain these properties of gravity, when nothing was in existence before the big bang? Where did gravity come from? If you say that properties like gravity are innate to the universe and have always existed, then it is also not so far fetched to say that a God could have also always existed, and is also innate to the existence of reality, etc.