The debate "God does not exist..." was started by
March 12, 2015, 9:34 am.
55 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 106 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sickboyblonde posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, danielle posted 12 arguments, I_Voyager posted 22 arguments, frozen_emily posted 5 arguments, Cormi98 posted 1 argument, braymus17 posted 1 argument, makson posted 15 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 15 arguments, ItsMateo posted 5 arguments, Getmurked posted 15 arguments, futurelawyer192 posted 1 argument, PathwayHomeFan posted 3 arguments, Jake posted 16 arguments, HankPalmer posted 1 argument, debateer posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, Mrcmck posted 1 argument, dominic posted 1 argument, Christian posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 11 arguments, Ematio posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
danielle, frozen_emily, Tassja, sickboyblonde, Hjkp98, I_Voyager, Sosocratese, misfitcarrot, Curious_Student, melom, cocobb, Electrogoose, SoeNandaOo, SiGuy27, Devinc25, Cormi98, l2lll, Harold_isaacs, Untamed, jesusorgy, pajrc1234, Riya, braymus17, human, makson, duffers and 29 visitors agree.
nikoli3664, PsychDave, Hollister_boy, ItsMateo, bobbybill, Getmurked, Amirah_Husna, futurelawyer192, Cody, processing123, Kirito, ms_open_mind, YoanaPetrova, gtomk, JMP9940, GetFucked, Daveofdev, PathwayHomeFan, AdamChase, Jake, NotHere, Scottie, Jazz, Mrcmck, debateer, milimehta068, HankPalmer, Shreemauli, wmd, SmileCookie, diva_aru, goldengigabite, dominic, ArsonLarson, transfanboy, confident, Christian, mmjd14, neveralone, Ematio, Najam1, The13yearoldconservative and 64 visitors disagree.
I am spiritually hungry, but I am not spiritually thirsty.
these are the spiritually hungry.
yes i have
have u never met a person wanting to know why there here? to look for answers? or even just be empty?
yes. you can want to be spiritually full.
and you can be spiritually thirsty?
that is spiritual hunger. we are not spiritually hungry. the Bible is usually figurative when it comes to lessons. or it will be a story with a moral lesson in it.
I will find it in a moment
Are u sure about dat
lie for hunger
but that choice? was ur own whether God knew about it or not. you made it. you still technically have the power to change it.
would u blame the car manufacturer with that logic as well.
Knowing someone well enough to guess what they will do is very different from God knowing all things.
First, because God doesn't have to guess, he knows. It isn't a prediction of what you will do, it is knowledge of what is already certain. That means the decision was made before you were even born.
Second, because God created everything. God created not only you, but everything and everyone who will ever influence your decision. If a deer darts out in front of a car and kills the family, they chose to be driving on that road, but God set up every variable knowing they would. If you create a situation for someone to do something wrong, it is called entrapment, and it removes much of the responsibility since you prompted the misdeed. If God is as portrayed, he entraped Adam and Eve and has continued to do so throughout history.
how? I could know u well enough to tell what u could do. does that suddenly not make it my choice? because u knew what I was going to choose?
maybe it does.
what about snakes?
lie? he's not talking about literal fruit. he's talking about spiritual nourishment.
We don't have free will if he knows what will happen in future!
Maybe universe doesn't need beginning?
what about Jesus's lie for hunger and thirst? What about poison of snakes?
forbid fruits *
God is out of time. That means he knows what will happen in future, and the past is happening for him at the moment same as future is happening. He is perfect, so he must know that or he won't be perfect. But he made world for 7 days, so who wrote the bible made mistake there.
maybe he doesn't know what will happen in the future.
it is said that God knows all that exists, but if the future is not yet written, if it does not exist, then even God does not know it. although I'm sure he can make pretty good educated guesses, there is no certainty.
Why did God just create taking snake that forces people to steal and eat some apples? Why did he forgive that apples? It can't be test (he knows what will happen in the future), not the value of apples (he can make apples how much as he want to) and it can't be because they are poisoned because the Bible says (Mark 16:18) that you can drink snake's poison and not to hurt yourself. Jesus once says that if you believe in him your will never be hungry or thirsty (another lie). I have 20+ more arguments, but try to destroy these first :D
If that's the case, it's just as ignorant to believe there's no God
God does not have to abide by our universes laws
God is outside the universe, not needing a beginning.
that is an infinite question no? there always will be a beginning.
The concept of god was created by humans. The idea of God contradicts itself. Everything in existence must be created, and some believe it was God who created it. Though, in the concept of God, God is an all powerful being and there cannot be something greater than God, because God is greatness itself. However, if God created everything, and in order for something to exist it must be created, what created God? If there is a greater being such as God, it is more likely that God would be composed of everything in existence. God is everything, and vice versa. It is ignorant to believe that everything in existence was created existence by a single, all-powerful individual.
well if I had to put an opinion I would say yes. there both inherent and told to be wrong. I'm leaning a bit more on told because what u feel can lie to u. like how teens like me "feel" like they love someone when most of the time it's infatuation till the relationship ends.
So are things wrong because God says so, or are they inherently wrong and God is just telling us?
God is the one who gave us a conscience. It tells us what is right and wrong. The reason why people still do bad things is that they ignore the conscience. God gives free will. He wants to interact with people , not just a bunch of robots doing everything He wants them to do.
Yep, right there with you. This program could be a bit less simple and a bit more accommodating of long conversations. It'd be nice if while we're having these conversations, 1-3 short sentence length summary claims "stacked up" together as the argument goes back, providing a handy summary of the arguments made that someone can quickly read through. I could say, write a long set of arguments and justifications, while summing the paragraph up and display that summary in an essay form or a list form. It'd be nice if the social aspect of the debate could have more depth, and be put to better use, like not just in finding consensus of "agree" and "disagree", but also to have our profiles sum up our declared position in all conversations and, by algorithms, display users in groupings of shared paradigms. If profiles summed up a lot of statistics - what your paradigms are, what your arguments have been, what your popularity rating is and what your victory statistics are like. I'd especially love it if two people could come together and have one-on-one spectator-attended debates on a topic over a period of time - let's say two weeks - and after which a mix of voting and analysis determines the winner, and the winners advance in a ladder. We could by that method determine who the most intelligent debaters are in whatever paradigm and host epic clashes of powerful minds on controversial subjects.
Or maybe I should just make my own app!? With all that, and blackjack, and hookers!
Bah, forget the app.
And the blackjack.
Fair points. I just like to try to give a balanced perspective.
At this point it is actually getting unwieldy to try to remember the arguments that have come before.
I agree with your argument and only meant my case in regard to the comment "only the believe i god will surely keep us away from doing something dangerous." which I thought to be ignorant of the way belief of god can be used to do evil. People do wicked things because of choice, or lust, or hate, or their nature, religion or no religion. I'm good with that. But if belief in god surely keeps us away from doing something dangerous, it's simply not acceptable to discount all the cases in which belief in god causes evil to be "not truly believing in god" which I think is the between-the-lines intent of the statement.
If the faith people are following is one of tolerance and respect, it will encourage people to be tolerant and respectful. Of it is a religion of hate, it will breed hate. Religion can be a force to motivate people to improve themselves and be more charitable.
As to why some people who believe in God do bad things, that would be because they are people. People are not perfect and everyone has their dark sides. Almost anyone, no matter their faith, will react on anger if provoked, or if they are afraid. Also, there are many people who profess faith that do not observe the rules of their own religion. The Bible says to love the neighbor but many people who attend church regularly fight with neighbors, disrespect their parents, and otherwise ignore that which would be inconvenient to them. No matter how positive the message of a religion might be, if someone is only paying it lip service it will not make them a better person.
Then why do people who believe in god sometimes do bad things? I see no evidence to suggest either believers or non-believers are better people than the other. And there are other people who don't believe in god and who don't think of themselves as atheists.
till now, there is no enough of scientific method that can be proven that god does exist. Athiest are the one who are not following god becuz they dun believe in god. But, does the believing leave a bad impact on us. NO. only the believe i god will surely keep us away from doing something dangerous.
Collectively, statistically, the non-religious communities of the world do not output as much charity as the religious bodies of the world. I'm a moral atheist too, but atheists are not on the whole as effective at charity. I can't explain it, it would require some good science to do that. But as a philosopher I would argue there isn't enough moral pressure because there are no unifying philosophies. We as atheists spend a lot of time setting ourselves apart as atheists, by explaining why the religious belief is not important, and we spend much less time talking about how to engage in communities, to rally together and feed the homeless, to take care of local problems or so far. We have no unifying strategy. The religious do, and it doesn't at all justify the "trueness" of religion, but it is their redeeming virtue.
I feel the same way about the "debate" around teaching creationism either instead of or beside evolution. Religious leaders working to make the world a better place is great. Those same leaders denying evidence and trying to teach their dogma as science is wrong and damaging to the education of children.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that I started watching a popular series of underground videos about "ancient knowledge" which tried very hard to muddy quantum mechanics with religion, and was forced to outright lie about the state of current scientific knowledge when it did so. If religion in the world were just about how people treated each other and how people achieved happiness, I'd be fine to let it be. But from religion comes the greatest barrier to scientific progress, in that religion distorts and makes the lesser argument seem the stronger by ways of rhetoric or lies. I cannot validate that lies are moral. I can at least theorize that honesty is moral in a universe which exists and contains within it observing entities with finite, specific needs.
When I listen to scientists explain their experiments, their results, their math - it makes sense. When the experts in religion and spirituality talk I hear "give me money and I'll give you lies!" And a society BUILT on that is terrifying to me.
Theres no bad if you believe or not that God is existing .. Unless
If you are discriminating others religion! and other people!
Does .. or i should say DID you know where we us humans came from?
no one here stated that charity is based wholly on religion. i stated that evidently many organizations have been formed DUE to religion, and many people, who normally wouldnt help others, now would, because they want to please a god or gods. im not saying its right, and of course people donate not in the name of religion, but it cannot be denied that many people have helped others in the name of religion
Sorry, I just find it hilarious that someone said that religion created charity. Why are some people so deluded as to feel that they need religion to give them and others moral values.
I'm an atheist. I don't drink, and actually adhere to many religious teachings. However I staunchly reject the idea that there is a God, of any form. It's annoying when people claim that you can only be a good and moral person if you are one of faith. Me and many other people I know prove that wrong.
I agree danielle! your a good lass! I'd quite like to meet you!
lol frozen Emily you have a fair point which no one has answered!!!
Jake I was not being an a** thanks! I was simply asking who created god? because we can't say god created the world if no one created him as someone can't just appear unless he evolved oh seems evolution is true.
It's tough going. But I think we made better arguments for the non-existence of god than otherwise. No satisfactory answer was given to conclude that god does exist. The best argument made in opposition stated "we shouldn't have this conversation because humans are too stubborn to change" and "religion does some good for society sometimes". But no argument at all concluded that god exists, and all arguments made were refuted to the point that no return refutation could be made. Although it's certain we all agree nothing can be proved or disproved, I think the argument is better made against the existence of god.
oh my god is this argument still going on lol! it's quite amusing because it just doesn't go anywhere!
So if there is no God of potatoes, potatoes do not exist? Why is your deity of choice necessary for existence?
This strikes me as a false conclusion.
conclusion = if God not exist.. we as human are not exist too
it depends on your beliefs
I'd like to say - we cannot be sure that a world with religion is more ideal than one without it, because religion has created charity. Science is a means, and when used by governments and businesses to fulfill some internally consistent contract scheme to make more paper money or to accomplish some political task like taking land and declaring it is now associated with your country, or is controlled by some religion to spread zealous messages, yes, it is destructive. But the most beneficent technology is not religious in design, and often avenues of research which could bring us more beneficent technology is hampered by religion. Many rich folk seem happy to have an unfair economic system in place too, as Jesus was content to have oil lathered on his feet, because he declared the poor will always be, and sometimes you've just got to have pleasure.
The conversation needs to be continuously had, because religion always establishes false limits to satisfy its own internal logic, and I'm not sure we have any limitations as a species. I don't see why we shouldn't pursue genetic or technological modifications to help us regulate our own behaviors towards more logical attitudes, or describe individual consciousnesses using computers to create an afterlife here on earth. I don't know why we can't go off into space and use the resources there to make trillions of post-humans instead the billions of humans which exist now. But I suspect if there's ever a resistance to our growth, it comes from religion; and growth makes more humans. Unsustainable growth? That requires one of three things: business scams, religious scams, or political scams, to manipulate the fact of human ignorance towards goals not good for those humans.
It doesn't matter that no one will change. Hopelessness is not positivity. Positivity is striving for the better state even if it's unachievable, because you don't know for certain it is unachievable, and modifying any or every behavior or thought concept along the way to get there. Depression is shrugging your shoulders and saying "There's no point. God made us so we would not change our mind about his unproven existence, so we will not, because we're stubborn." Abandon false beliefs and embrace learning. All the science textbooks and lectures you need to learn are on the internet. Study it, then when you know enough, work on it, and try to use it to produce something of utility for those you love. That is the ONLY positive approach.
I respectfully disagree that all wars are a result of religion. Wars happen because the humans in power are corrupt and the humans following them are naive - not based on religion. Extremism can stem from anything. It's not exclusive to religious views although religious extremism seems to be quite powerful and gains support much quicker than anything else.
religion is beneficial. others who wouldnt normally donate or help others now do because they believe in a god. yes many wars have been waged because of it, bhr science has caused just as many deaths. think of all the inventions tht have caused death , and the induction of modern warfare in ww1.both are good beneficial things that, becsuse humans are flawed, have been used bad, but are still beneficial
I'm not sure if religion is a benefit to society really, science is in that it saves lives through medicine and research etc. but had religion never Been created would this have much of a negative effect, as people all say wars are a result of religion or extremist religious views but still if religion did not exist then nor would the extremism.
i state back to my previous argument before all this mess happened. that a religion vs science debate does not solve anything. people are of the utmost passion when it comes to one side, and it is never resolved, and i have never seen one persuades by the opposing side. both benefit society, and both are necessary for society.
and getmurked I dont know what happens when we die! I know obviously the biological stuff that happens but if your talking about life after death I certainly don't believe in a heaven and hell as such, I dont believe that when we die we are judged and we either go to heaven or an eternity of fire and pain, don't get me wrong "heaven" is something Id like to believe in and I guess I do hope it exists but not in the religious way with god
Plus I dont think she actually said anything offensive about religious people....
I didn't avoid the question, Emily. I stated that I simply don't have the answer. That question should be put in front of a religious person. Unfortunately, we've had a difference of opinion in what context the question was asked.
she's just making a point, which she has been trying to ask throughout this debate but no ones answered her so she was actually just trying to get your attention so you'd answer her question rather than avoid because she's right if there is a god what put him there in the first place and so on!!
It seems we may have read different remarks. Emily's post was not as innocent and objective as you make it out to be. Perhaps her wording was not purposefully worded in such a way that a religious person might take offense to it. It is not the question that she asked, Dave, it is the way she presented it. She had no intention to keep an open mind and hear what others have to say - unless it was what she had already made up her mind to be true. The way she presented her question was not for the sake of an actual conversation, but rather to give herself the false sense of superiority over someone who happens to think differently than her. As a result, any respect I may of had is gone.
I'm not belittling someone because of the question they asked. I'm belittling someone because the reason they asked the question was not to understand, but to belittle, ironically.
Jake - 13.8 billion is 13 800 million, so while calling it millions of years old is not succinct, it isn't actually wrong.
Second, while Emily has phrased it differently, what she is talking about is the first cause debate. If everything has to have a creator, who created the creator? She is not being as ass, she is pointing out a flaw in religious dogma that other people have pointed out in the past. She seems to have come to the same conclusion independently, which is why she isn't using the same words others have, but that doesn't diminish the question. You say that she obviously hasn't had a personal revelation but that begs the question, if there is no God, why should she wait for contact from a nonexistent entity to speak her mind?
To personally attack and belittle someone for asking a valid question, either because you don't understand it or don't like it, would seem like a "dick move," soI would ask that you try not to be an ass.
If you claim to be "all about science", perhaps knowing scientific estimations would be helpful. The universe is thought to be about 13.8 billion years old, not millions.
I know not what those pesky "religious people" have for an answer to your question. I don't identify with a religion, so I don't believe I'm one of those people you speak of. But might I add that the harassment of religious people is a dick move. You clearly haven't had a personal revelation as most religious people have had. You (and I) dont see the evidence religious people claim but that's no reason to take a personal resentment of them. So I ask of you, try not to be an ass.
danielle what do you think happens when you die?
I dont find the idea of god repulsive, I'm just all about science and I believe in the universe being created over millions of years, therefore I believe god was created by people who just didn't understand, that's what we do when we ding understand we try to explain it and back then they created god
hey guys I don't know if you noticed that I had a question to? maybe your just reading the big fat paragraphs that a re either making sense or full if stuff that doesn't make sense. okay so you religious people say god created the world right? who created god? and then who created the creator of and who was the creator of that creator its like the chicken and andnegg joke! so please smeome tell me who created god?
Evolution and tectonic plates cannot be proven- yet, anyway. They have a substantial amount of evidence. However, they cannot be proven at this point in time.
As for evidence of God, I wish to only speak for myself. But hard core religious folk tend to say the universe as a whole is a miracle and therefore the work of the Almighty. I believe that's too facile. But I also believe that the idea of God is not absolutely repulsive, as you seem to think.
evolution and tectonic plates can be proven, I know the big bang is a theory but its a good theory it makes sense however god does not, where is the evidence for god
We don't know the universe was created by the big bang. We THINK that because it makes the most sense to most people. The same could be said about evolution. There is a lot of evidence backing it up but in the end, we can't say definitively. Tectonic plates are a theory as well. Yes, they all make sense. But no, we don't have the capabilites at this time to prove them definitively.
so people thought god created the earth, we now know the earth is a result of the big bang
people thought god created humans we now know humans evolved over thousands if years
it's the same as how ancient Greeks thought volcanic eruptions were due to angry gods we now know it's due to fault lines and the movement of tectonic plates
To say that we can explain mostly everything is a terribly faulty statement. We have only begun to understand the universe around us.
God was created by humans many years ago when we couldn't explain the world, nowadays we can explain most things so......
true stories have been confirmed by the government, and ghost stories have been known to date back for centuries. it goes beyond just a trick of the mind. but in the case of religion no it doesnt prove god exists, and im not saying it does, but it does prove that there is more than just life and deatg.
no offense but the evidence is all around you. simply google paranormal experiences, and the influx of such a big multitude of personal stories are overwhelmimg, and you may want to state thar thier false, but ask your peers, family, co workers acquantences and i guarantee you will get a story about a paranormal experience. so i ask you, is all those personal experiences both online and in the real world fake? there is so many accounts, and ig.you google paranormal witness accounts, you can even find live evidence. you can debate demonic possessions, but the evidence of ghosts are too strong.
As far as I'm concerned, paranormal experiences are a trick of the mind or simply just stories that should not be used to make any point relating to God. If there is valid evidence of such activity (besides personal experience), I too would like to see.
The problem with things that everyone knows is that, often, everyone is wrong. Everyone used to know that the sun was a chariot being pulled through the sky, a day that thunder was a deity with a hammer, and that everything revolved the Earth.
I would be interested to see your evidence of ghosts and demonic possession. I have a degree in psychology, and we touched on these subjects briefly, and I took a religious studies class that looked into these and other topics and I couldn't find a single reputable research paper in a peer reviewed journal. If you know of some, please point me towards them, because I love to learn.
i agree with all previous arguments you made good claims. going back to revelations and the like though, i would like to engage you in a couple questions. 1. what do you say about demonic possessions? they are most evidently true, and there js live evidence of people witnessing such a horror. you cannot disprove that its not real. educated doctors have witnessed it and said it was a possesion, in alot of cases i have seen. also, what about ghosts? i think at this point we all know ghosts are real, everyone knlws at least someone who has had a personal experience. i myself have witnessed a paranormal experience. are you going to say were all crazy? ghosts are evidently real, i simply ask how you explain it. (scientifically if you will)
I would also like to correct myself from before- I believe that there are some things that science will never be able to explain. But I also believe that we shouldn't stop trying to attempt to understand and explain the world around us.
I assume that post is not directly aimed at me, as I believe that I expressed similar ideas. The only difference in our arguments is that I don't believe we should dismiss the thought of a God entirely. Doing so would be irrational. Scientific discovery is more reliable and often times more plausible than religious theories.
I understand your view of how you believe religion teaches us to be okay with not having credible evidence. I happen to agree with you. Religious people, however, claim to have found their own credible evidence, whether it can be backed scientifically or not. Don't assume I am one of those people, because I am not.
People who claim to be rational, scientific thinkers are disappointingly obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of a God.
In relation to the bbt, why is it unacceptable to speculate what there was before and in turn, relate it to your own personal beliefs? Yes, there is no credible evidence (to you) that there is a God or that he created the universe. On the other hand, there is no scientific theory that holds credible evidence as to what there was before the bbt either.
You attempting to argue religious people out of their religion, which is impossible since that their explanations are based on raw faith. Yes, I agree that many religious people are happy with not knowing more or are not interested in advancing our knowledge. But for you to be so hung up on trying to talk them out of their faith is pointless.
It is unwise to completely dismiss someone's belief simply because they can't answer specific questions. Anyone can point out flaws in someone's argument. I do agree that people who advocate for the stagnation of scientific discovery should come under scrutiny, but not to the point where we get so caught up in disproving their theory that we are no longer focused on proving any theory as to what there was before the bbt.
An argument I like against the idea of a creator before the big bang, which initiated the universe is thus. If every complex structure requires an architect, such as as computer requiring a human, or DNA requiring a god, because all complex structures are constructed by something more complex than it, then god must necessarily be more complex than that which he has created. So who made your architect? Where does he come from and what is he made of? And if one argues, god had no creation, he simply is infinite and always was, then why cannot that argument be drawn out of god and given to the universe in whatever state it was in that caused the big bang?
The BBT explains pretty well the lifespan of the universe. Why is it better to argue for it's creation? I don't think it's necessary, just to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
We all agree that there are certain observational barriers which we know not how to cross. But are we sure we should plant our feet firmly down here and say "We cannot advance anymore, we have reached the limits of our observation"? We have only three apparent observational limits... The quantum limit, the speed-of-light limit, and the inability to observe what the force of gravity is (we can only see the effects of gravity). We don't know that perhaps figuring out the secret of gravity, will help us figure out the secret of quantum mechanics, which together will let us fold space and transmit matter across vast lengths of space without costing time. Nor should we ever create limits for ourselves, for all the good reasons Dave put up from when we've done so in the past given certain premises. Isn't it more logical to not assume strongly that what we believe has merit, and instead, to learn how to study the reality we live in and contribute to the development of scientific knowledge?
Should we make a new topic in which to debate? I think it's more-so an explanation of "how do we define the validity of what exists or is perceived as true in a human world". We're exploring that to understand "Does God Exist" in the context of whether seemingly competing ideas exist too, or not.
Personal revelation is of course, personal. I haven't experience revelation, nor do I know anyone who has. I've met people who've made the claim. But unless I experience it, I'm unwilling to trust what people say about private experiences which go against what I have seen and experienced. But I have known people who seemed perfectly sane, except for the fact that they saw a child in their rear-view mirror who wasn't there. And I've known people who very much felt that they had a psychic power. My best friend triggered into schizophrenia when he was 18 and afterwards he couldn't tell the difference between reality and his own fantasy, and to this day it haunts him. His mother believed she had experienced revelation. What she described to me sounded a heck of a lot like what her son has gone through, and the result was not a life saved, but a life of suffering and poor parenting choices in order to devote herself to god. And I've experienced hallucinogenic drugs which have cost me all my sense of self, temporal continuity, logic or reality. So I don't know how to appreciate arguments from revelation when I can see just how easily the human brain twitches, and then thinks it' experiences something which didn't really happen, and how those misperceptions cause agony.
As for the big bang theory, 'just a theory' is already summed up by Dave below as being valid, so why would you continue to use rhetoric to bash theories? Theories are excellent devices. I don't see how I can validate that the original authors of any religious text were honest when they wrote it, and I feel very strongly they weren't. I think scientists are far more honest people than those from the 3rd century, having read too much ancient literature to be blind to the psychology of the bygone eras. Too often are good men like Socrates murdered, and the statesman good and bad alike uses a religion to inherit power. And only today, by rejecting religious authority, have we overthrown that reality. Though we are slipping back into it; coinciding with a resurgence of religious authority.
@Getmurked if God did create the big bang then yes, I have proven my argument! God Exists! @PhyschDave religion is not a theory, it is based on beliefs and some facts depending on the person you present it to. I have evidence and I can tell you my personal experiences as evidence. But yes the Big Bang IS just a theory, not proven so who really knows!!?? If we talked personally, I think you would understand this more, but the Big Bang is just a sorry excuse for the creation of the world. Science and religion are alike! They go right together, but finding evidence for either is extremely difficult! and this is probably the most hardest topic for both sides of the argument. I think this has changed from "Does God Exist?" to "Big Bang v.s God" right???
I agree with practically everything you so I'm troubled by the sense that we have something to argue about. I didn't mean to imply that religion is a good substitute to scientific discovery, because it is not. I was talking directly about the bbt, not science as a whole.
But as a rational thinker, I realize that there some things that humans are incapable of understanding, no matter how much research we do. That is where religion should come into play. No one can scientifically prove how the universe and bbt came to be. That will never be explained by science. There is no evidence of anything before the bbt, so people should feel free to speculate reasonably.
On a side note, the Catholic Church originally fought the scientific revolution because they feared a loss of power, if I'm not mistaken. That could be wrong though, my world history is a little fuzzy
I do not believe religion is evil because religious groups do far more good and charitable things than they do damage, but religious dogma is not an alternative to learning and research. If it were, most of us would run the risk of being burned as witches for our technology. Religion has been forced to change by progress and will continue to be, and would be better served to stop trying to fight scientific discovery. Many people are turning away from organized religion because they feel the views are out of touch with the modern world.
I don't know if God exists or not. I have never met God, nor have I met anyone who has. I do not disbelieve that there could be a God, but I will not bury my head in the sand because I am afraid God might get mad at me for using the brain he gave me. I have trouble believing that God would give people wisdom, curiosity, logic and intelligence, then expect us to never use them. If there is a God, and he gave us gifts or reason, it would be insulting to not use them.
Saying they can't be proven is correct. Saying they don't have any more evidence is not. Scientific theories make predictions that can be tested, that's what science is. When they predict the forces involved in a hurricane, or the big bang, they predict what you should see if they are right, then they test it. You seem to not grasp the difference between proven incontrovertibly correct, and having evidence to back up a theory, and making a statement with no evidence whatsoever.
If God created the world, from every test that had ever been run, he made it to obey rules that exist without outside interference. We can calculate what will happen if you step off the roof of a building. We don't need faith, we don't need to say God chose to take you. We know that gravity will pull you towards the nearest massive object (Earth) with a force we can calculate.
The idea that faith is a good substitute for evidence is asking to be wrong. Last Thursdayism is the belief that the world was created last Thursday and that everything that contradicts that was placed there to trick us (memories, books, everything). It was created to show the fallacy of the "prove me wrong" mentality.
Religion has made many predictions and assumptions that we can test. It says the sun revolves around the Earth. It doesn't. It says there was a massive, world covering flood that killed all but two of every species. We have a great deal of evidence that that didn't happen either. Religion has always opposed scientific discovery because it contradicts what they believe. Do you think anyone who says that the Earth revolves around the sun should be imprisoned? Because the Catholic Church did, and only relatively recently apologized.
The Big Bang has not been proven. The Big Bang theory itself has more merit than the belief that an all-powerful being created it. However, no aspect of any of these theories can be definitively proven one way or the other.
stating that scientific discoveries are proven doesnt mean anything. how do you know god didnt create the big bang to make the universe? how do you know all these scientific reasons for everything that happens from tides to hurricanes isnt because god created this world to acr alive and on its own. we dont, but having faith in a better ideal than to non exist after death is a much stronger and passionate belief
Neither can be definitively proven or disproved. There is no difference there. You said scientific theories have never been proven wrong... That doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Same goes for religious theories. To say that one unproven theory is more right than another unproven theory is a stupid thing to argue about.
Scientific theories are sets of explanations that have never been proven wrong. It can only be called a law when we can recreate it under controlled circumstances to prove causation, as well as remove any other possible causes.
Religious theories are people making statements with no evidence to back them up and saying "prove me wrong." There is a big difference
The big bang theory has merit. However, it is just a scientific theory. If it were completely proven, it would be called a scientific law. Just as religion is only a theory. It's foolish to compare the two as they are both theories.
But the Big Bang Theory still does not make sense. I mean explosions destroy things mostly, and what's created is not perfect. Its random. You can't accurately predict the aftermath. Now using my past argument as evidence, the earth could not be created randomly from the Big Bang. What my argument is that instead of a great explosion creating our world, there is actually a greater being of greater power. And that creator is the one who has made this world. And being logical here, an actual being who has created this world sounds more logical than it being created randomly from an explosion of heat and energy.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
You can't just have one and not the other. There's got to be a balance of the two, for science and rational thought can only go so far with how feeble the human mind is. To think that the whole universe was just a nice coincidence is irrational. And to think that life spontaneously appeared from an all-powerful being is just as irrational.
Just to clarify a small thing too. The BBT argues not for how the universe started, but for what it was doing from the first few microseconds afterward. Most physicists are happy to say "I don't know what started the universe, but everything was exploding out from a hot, dense state." Afterwards there are untestalle hypothesis of what there was before, though many phycisists argue it's illigical to concieve of 'before' because it's not apparent there is time without motion or energy (otherwise, a universe with ours' properties.)
The big bang makes predictions about the universe, like background radiation, that we have found to be true. It also explains the shape of things, and gives us a model that describes how things came to be the way they are without needing unexplainable forces. The big bang does make sense and has been found to make accurate predictions in every way it has been tested to date.
How? What happens when something explodes? The Big Bang Theory tells us that there was an explosion and that's how everything started.
Does the Big Bang Theory make any more sense?
That is a circular question, and shows that you don't understand how proof works. You cannot, by definition, prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove that there is no evidence that it does, but you can never prove something doesn't exist because there isn't any proof to find. By the same virtue, prove that God isn't a bowl of spaghetti out in space. You can't because, while it is obviously absurd, there is no proof one way or the other. That is why pastafarianism was created, to show the faulty logic of demanding proof of God's nonexistence.
When claiming something exists, the burden of proof lies with the person saying that it does. If I claim you murdered someone, I have to prove it. If I claim I have a winning lottery ticket, I have to prove it before anyone will give me money. Religion is the only place people use the logic that if you can't prove it isn't so, then it is.
I am not saying there is no God, because honestly I don't have that answer. I just get frustrated when people use flawed logic to make this demand. If you have proof God exists, show it and settle this argument that has gone on for hundreds, if not thousands of years. If not, don't demand that someone produce evidence one way or the other regarding something that may never have existed.
For all who believe God isn't real, what proof is there that God DOESN'T exist?
to try to change ones belief for purposes to protect others is valid. doing it for any other reason is mainly because the person is doing it selfishly. every belief should be respectee and viewed and trying to change it isnt respecring thier belief. more often than not it leads to conflict and/or a disassembled relationship. as long as one is generslly a good citizen and helpful thier belief is personal and should only be preached or argued in a necessary point of place.
There are good reasons to try to change someone's opinion, even if it is a deeply held belief.
First, if the belief is hurtful to others. No one I have seen on here falls into this category, but if someone were expressing racist, bigoted, or otherwise hateful beliefs (KKK would certainly fall into that category, as would extremists of nearly any religion) I would try to change their minds because that would make the world a better place.
Secondly if their belief has been conclusively proven wrong. I am not saying God has been proven to net exist, but there are religious stories that are incompatible with historic and scientific records. I will always try to change Young Earth believer's minds for example, because I don't want people to pass on beliefs that are detrimental.
Those are about the only reasons I can think of to try to change someone's beliefs, and even then I try to be respectful. When it comes to God, the afterlife, or anything like that as long as you aren't harmful to others, I respect your beliefs.
no we shouldnt persuade someone one way or another. but that is human nature. we want our young ones to be like us, so we tend to raise them similar, sometimes uncontrollably. now, we shouldnt interven if they decide on another view, but showimg them what and why you believe in something should not be frowned upon. so yes, i believe people should be able to freely express thier beliefs, and obtain respect from others on it. but to argue, and try tk purposely and selfishly persuade someone to your side should be frowned upon. simply state youe beliefs but dont intend to persuade one.
I didn't read in depth the link, but I'm familiar with all those arguments. At least of the material ones I know well. The other ones haven't revealed themselves to me yet.
Given the amount of stuff out there, and the amount of planets in the galaxy which are in the right spot to harbor life, I'm not surprised the earth is here. The fact of nature having constant natures doesn't seem to problematic to me either. All stuff appears to originate from the same place, and all stuff appears made of similar parts (various particles). It's not hard to see how stuff flowing from one starting point would share similar natures, and be balanced there-in. What started the big bang? Who knows. There was a recent theory about an origin in quantum mechanics, but I'm dubious because I haven't researched it in enough depth. But we've been wrong so often about the religious cause of events, so shouldn't we keep performing research and determine the cause of the universe? Maybe, as with the rest of the universe, we'll find an answer so amazing and extending that the potentials of reality expand just as far as it always does as our science reveals more and more about the mechanism of the cosmos.
As for the need for a creator for complexity, I'm not sure it's necessary. Consider that everything we make is made with definite form. Good devices prioritize function over form. If the function of the universe is to produce life, most of it is wasted in the effort. Most of the universe seems to not have us in mind. So why should I think it is designed for us? I'm not entirely against certain pandeist or deistic arguments, it's not irrational that there could be a consciousness outside this universe with the knowledge to kickstart a universe, especially if there is a vast multi-verse. But I'm not convinced that it's either necessary or evident.
I think you're probably right that religions are filling a necessary roles in some respect. I'd say mainly community involvement, maintaining some family ties and in evoking a sense of responsibility to do things like support charities. I'm not sure it's necessity is universal. I can envision a future where we use science to alter the nature of humanity so we don't have such a hard time performing moral tasks, so we don't need emotionally compelling systems like religion or government to do things like help our fellow man.
I agree about science, and would use the same argument. The problems with human violence is a singular nature. It doesn't matter if it's religion, or politics, anything we regard as so important we cannot and should not do without can be defended using any means, and science is just a means to whatever end we declare. So the end can be killing, and we can use nuclear power to make a bomb. Or if the end is health, we can build nuclear reactors to power houses (let's not get on a tangential conversation about nuclear waste though ;).
I was thinking about this more at work though. I was leaning towards you being right about it being a waste of time to argue over god. And I'm still sure it's wrong to pointlessly take away something which gives a person peace. But for the sake of the younger generations, we need to have this conversation publically, so from that conversation they can make up their own minds. We may all be settled into our ways, but it's in our interactions that we inform the future generations, and we shouldn't necessarily just make them settled like us.
oh and here is the page if you wish to check it out
To: Danielle and other opposers; There's is just one thing I dont really get. How can a beautiful world, such as the one we live in today, be created from virtually nothing? Like this "Big Bang Theory" doesn't make sense. Just...BANG BOOM! Oh look, its Earth! No, this theory that the earth was created from one enormous explosion of energy and light is, to me, highly illogical. Now I don't fully understand the Big Bang Theory, but if we were being logical here, which would make more sense? The world created from a "Big Bang"? Or it be created from an actual being. I mean Coca Cola doesn't just fall out of the sky or pop out of the ground. Manufacturers from the company create it, just how God has created this planet for us to live on. He created this Earth perfectly just for us to live on. For example, the Earth is just the right distance away from the sun. If the earth was placed further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer, even a tiny inch closer, and the Earth would burn up. And our atmosphere! The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. God was loving and intelligent enough to create our planet Earth, just for us to live on and be happy! I know there is a God, and I hope you guys can analyze my evidence and know this to be true. Thank you.
but yes,from a societal viewpoint religon is necessary, and science is necessary. both are vital sources withim society that help form society and present who we are. instead of debating what is real and not, we should be happy that in this country, we can express our views on religion freely and are able to express it to others. science in that matter has saved alot of lives, and at thee same times has killed alot. modern medicime has saved countless lives, yet the introductiom of modern warfare in ww1 brought countless deaths. same for religion. wars have been fought for religion and brought millioms of deaths. yet religion has helped others in society who need it and has saved tons of people. both to me are necessary for the continuation of society
if you wish to pursue such interests i see no disagreement as to that. but upon the topic of stubborness, yes, that is a hefty flaw in humans. i state such a claim because i have never witnessed a change, or even an acceptance of the others opposing view, jn politics and religion vs science, hence the phrase " never debafe politics and religion with friends" a phrase i am beginning to accept. faith is a stronger idealogy than you may think, and to change ones views completely on that would be a remarkable feat, nor saying it hasnt been done, just a rare occurence. i myself, am open to new ideas, but i do admit on the topic of relgion my foot stays down. i am a catholic. alot of people would say the same on both viewpoints, for one of humans greatest flaws is stubborness, and when it comes to topics such as these it is next to impossivle to change
I should add that at this point in my life I even question the validity or necessity of the term "atheist" because I've studied so much science and philosophy that I crave just developing a new world view that is just naturally not sourced from religious philosophy, so it doesn't justify itself as an opposite, which "atheist" does, at least linguistically, as being "no-godism". And then as a definition it is "the lack of belief in god or gods". Which works uphill against the historical premise that belief is the natural state. So in the course of my philisophical studies, I want to form a foundational moral and freedom-prioritizing philosophy that begins prior to atheism and unrelated to religion. Not refuting it; exploring the human possibilities of a material reality.
Is it so, or is it that we too readily accept the fact of our own stubbornness? Not only on the topic of religion... Too often we humans polarize ourselves to one side or the other, politically, socially, professionally. Within religions and sciences we see this too. Shouldn't we tell ourselves regularly to accept the possibility of change?
When I was 12, I was catholic. When I was 14, I became an agnostic. When I was 17, I was sure I was an atheist. From then til now I was an atheist, but the flavor of my atheism has changed. I used to think religion was evil. Arguments similar to the ones you have made changed my mind on that. Until recently I was sure there was no afterlife. Recent interpretations of quantum physics open up some plausible possibilities for afterlife, and other phenomenon like telepathy and teleportation. Politically I'm very transformed from what I used to be too. Socially as well. I see it as an evolution, I'm always the same person, but I always taste new things in order to broaden my pallet. For my whole life I've believed having two or more children is more healthy than just having one. It was conditional on my relationship we agree to have at least two children. So in the course of the debate, we looked up the research on the topic and it is against my view. So I changed my view. Is it maybe the fact of stubbornness that we must oppose? And do rightly, the way we're doing it right now, with respectful and rational conversation.
and i agree with you. life should be about personal acceptance and ones belief and happiness im thier own life. if your fine without religion, then thats fine, and since you accept others with thier beliefs then that is also fair. but i disagree with debating this topic. yes, i agree that this is a suitable place for discussion. but relgion vs science debates get us nowhere. a believer in science and a believer in god are not inclined to change, we are stubborn. such topics are futile.
As for the other bit, I don't know what to tell you. I don't need to think my life is part of some cosmic plan to love my life. I look into the eyes of my dog and love my girlfriend and debate philosophy and literature with her father and my grandmother. I laugh often and sorrow when it's right to. My life is, and I think it's profound that I'm a speck in the spectrum which can contemplate his position in it. I'm just not afraid enough of the universe or my own death to need god. I can determine purpose for myself, and I think that's one of the most beautiful and enriching things I know of. I can look up at the stars and know how long it took for that light to reach me there at that moment. I am part of the universal causality. It's not random... It just is. I'd say life is Teutonic, we fight against the odds, we walk through the fire for love and honor, we push against the shadow and make lights for us to clearly see. And I see no reason why those unintentional movements of energy couldn't ferry us into an intergalactic civilization.
I certainly agree that some people need religion, and that religious people are just as varied and good/bad as any other people. I think people should have freedom to believe in religion and engage in their religious practices in places of ceremony. I think there should be religious tolerance and I look down on hostile anti-theism.
I think in a place like this where topics are debated, it's okay for claims like "god does/doesn't exist" to be made and argued for. Part in parcel with freedom is to have freedom to engage in debate in places so designed, just as freedom of religion is to have freedom to have places of worship. I don't walk into churches to tell people their beliefs are wrong. I do that here, I don't do it elsewhere. The other day a guy stopped me on the street while I was out for a walk. He gave me a prayer on a piece of paper and, with positive conviction, told me I'd be saved if I said the prayer. I didn't refute him because we're in public, he has a right to tell me this, he genuinely believes he's doing good, and I don't like hurting people. So I just said thank you and went on my merry way, just as happy not to believe in his god and to enjoy the good life on earth.
But, for the spirit of debating in a place of debate, I'm not convinced that humans definitely need religion. I think humans who have been raised to need religion probably need religion, hence my belief in freedom of belief. But in general, I think children born into this world shouldn't be indoctrinated or exposed to religion 'til their in their teens. I don't think there should be a law stopping parents from teaching their children religion, just generally I think it'd be healthier if otherwise. It's like this one conservative metaphor "If a man has spent his whole life fishing with a broken fishing rod, and he's learned every trick he needs to successfully fish with it, then it would be wrong to force him to fish with a new rod." This is probably true, but it'd be wrong to pass down the broken rod when the kid could catch more fish quicker with a new rod."
If in a place like this I'd convince a person their religion is false, I'd try to replace it with a positive disbelief, that healthy and moral action exists, that life on earth can be happy without heaven, that life can be good without god if you trust in family, love animals, study science, craft works of art, make devices which improve the quality of life of people and don't give into greedy mind-traps of business.
so you would state that we,in accordance with our position in the universe, are barely able to sustain life here and we just happen to be in the exact right place? that we were just a spasm of matter and energt randomly created with no intention? religion has been abused in the past, and yes, they were wrong, which is why an enormous amount of athiests are available today, along with the fact we can now speak freely without persecution. now you can believe what you want and i will respect it, but what i ask you is you respect others, the more optimistic who believe in a more oppurtune life, and dont shoot down thier beliefs with your little calculations.also, yes, there are crazy religious figures now and in the past who yell and try to change people forcefully , but the majority of religious people are not like that. why shoot down something that helps others in need just because a few people are corrupt. im every systwm there is corrupt people, no matter what it is. but look at all the religions im the world and you can see how peaceful and helpful they are in this world. dont shoot down somethimg beneficial.
WHO CREATED GOD
Also, not out of thin air. Life on earth seems to have been a small sequence of events on a tiny place over a short time. The spacial events which led up to the creation of life on the earth appear to happen 16-18% in a galaxy. Galaxies only account for 4-6% of the mass in the universe, so 1-5% of the universe might have a planet on it which could give rise to life. But the enormous equations going on in there need only to justify for life arising on at least one of those billions and billions of planets once - here. So I think it's highly likely life arises naturally in this universe, and that the universe is not finely tuned for this to happen, but barely able to let this happen.
I've done the math crudely myself after a certain point, but it's based on looking at the following links for sources of information:
If my math is off, it'll only be a small threshold around a variable on my conclusions I think.
Yes. I argue that the presence of nearby exoplanets in the Goldilocks position with a mass comparable to earth is sufficient evidence to say that this planet's position is a common enough occurrence. It's evidently logical. If it happens that frequently, just observing a few thousand stars, and there are fifty billion stars in the galaxy, and there are as many as a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, there are enough to put the odds that life arose naturally on earth in a reasonable position.
Nothing necessary for life to emerge looks so well arranged and abundant it couldn't arise from chance. The universe is just barely hospitable to life.
are you suggesting that the earth as complex as it is and us humans appeared out of thin air in the precise spot so that the earth would not burn or freeze is logical?
So what I hold onto is the idea that humans can use a digitally augmented scientific method to establish that state with an extension of human life. Morally I prize innovation, the opportunity for innovation, the accessibility of available knowledge, the available of the necessary resources for healthy living (time, food, residence), the freedom of self-experience, the freedom of self-expression, freedom from harm or death, freedom from slavery, freedom to actionable knowledge, freedom to share and exchange information over a digital network, the freedom to self-design and print or cheaply purchase computation technology, and the freedom to study and alter one's own genes or body in any way they design. I'd say my every though is about achieving that goal in a moral way - that is, a way which does not from time to time compromise some of those values which are more core to my epistemology (mainly freedom from slavery, addiction and ignorance).
I do expect nothing happens, though I've got alternatives which I just believe to be less plausible, and speculative because of the Stuart-Hameroff proposals of quantum consciousness. I've met many religious people, I think they've been as variable as anyone else. Some have been hopeless or hopeful, good or evil, negative or positive. I've known some who think every day is about righteous suffering, I've met some who believe pursuing knowledge is a divine pursuit. I've also met religious people who I believe get a healthy confidence from religion. And I've met all the same from non-religion. I've seen asshole atheists whose only pleasure seems to make fun of the religious, as I've seen religious people go around screaming "SINNER!".
I frame this as my life-goal, and I think it to be morally positive, and derived from a non-religious premise. Life is a small outcome of a vast cosmic nature. The cosmic nature is just the relationship between divisive bits of stuff. Forces and momentum meet in varying quantities to make forms, and these forms influence other forms by leaving a mark. Systems which can regulate energy into a sensory system with a memory capacity can translate "experience" into memory using systems of variable representations, be it chemical code to represent a sensory experience, or electrons to produce a monitor image. When one is sophisticated enough to reflect upon its immediate past in great enough symbolic detail, it can process certain types of experiences fast enough to maximize them - they eventually can become conscious minds. Minds are a rare thing, and a quanta of a mind is a limited thing. There are only a few social animals which share our self-recognition abilities or social grouping mechanisms.
In this universe of mostly-not-mind, I think the only certain thing relevant to "mind" is "mind". Mind's per-requisite is effort of perception, memory recall, and action. Actions are what lead minds to sustain themselves, given the clear recall of objective past events related to the given action. Since morality is a property of action which relates to what is good/positive for the action, and humans have a specific action-matrix, human morality is the quanta of event-action relationships which establish the clear perception of objective, actionable truths which enable the human to act in such a way which continues being a human that can collect objective, actionable truths with clear senses. Continued in next post...
i voyager let me ask you this. what do you belive in when you die? you sleep forever? you dont exist? faith is called faith for a reason. its for people who believe in a greater power without question. people have faith because no one wants to believe you just die and dont exist. religous peoole are an optmistic bunch because they want to believe thier life has a bigger meaning, and that they can still live freely when they die. so if god doesnt exist, then you die anyways. but whats the point living negatively instead of holding on to one chance that you could live gloriously in the afterlife
who made god?
The proposition is that god created it. But there appears no proof. The fact that the stuff you mentioned is there, ItsMateo, is not proof. And when we look closely, we find proof that the present forms of stuff moved on from the past events Danielle very expertly declared. What proof do you have that the propositions you've made are true? If you will cite a holy book, what proof do you have the holy book is not fiction? Why can we say the creator made this universe for us, when so much of it does not exist with us in mind? 99.99% of the universe appears absolutely hostile to life. Life is an apparently uncommon feature. Even if many planets teemed with life, planets are small and there is much more void, many more stars, many more nebulae and comets and gas giants out there. If the creator wanted to make a reality for us which by the virtue of appearing designed for us convinced us of faith, you'd think he'd make a universe so suited for us it'd be apparent. The universe would be tuned for life; less in the universe would be otherwise tuned. Where is god's hand in it all?
itsmateo look outside your window everything you see from clouds to mountains, humans to human emotions can be recalled to the basic principals of evolution, cell division, quantum mechanics, etc. The atoms that comprise life on earth, that make up our bodies, are scientifically traceable to the crucibles that cooked light elements into heavy elements in the cores of stars. they collapsed then exploded, scattering their enriched contents across the galaxy. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These then become gas clouds that condense, collapse and form new solar systems. some of which have possible habitable life bearing planets. When you think of things like this the extreme beauty in it all I am overwhelmed and extremely happy to be part of this amazing series of events. There's no moment do I consider an intelligent beardy creator.
You can't say for sure one way or the other. However, the probability that God exists is very low. The BOP would be on those arguing in the affirmative and with extraordinary claims such as God, the evidence for its existence would have to be equally as extraordinary. In the absence of such evidence, I would argue that the existence of God is, at the very least, extremely unlikely.
You want proof?? Alright. Please if you will, look outside your window. What do you see? In fact just look around you and you will find your proof. Proof that God does exist. For he was the one to create these wonderful things we have now in our lives. This perfectly created world, our daily resources such as the water, air, and food we consume. Everything he did not create manually, still came from him. For he gave the knowledge unto man that they may make these creations.
One can't be entirely sure. I based on evidence, do not believe there is a god. Its not fact. I have my faith(in science) and my evidence while theists have just their faith. Its only logical to question a presumed dude that controls us all.
I don't know one way or the other off God exists. I voted no because I can't definitively say that there is no God.