The debate "Is God real or fake and why" was started by
January 8, 2018, 3:52 am.
205 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 110 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
dbrock posted 1 argument, Marcon posted 2 arguments, kameront posted 2 arguments, Fowling posted 1 argument, Jakellutis posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, wilsoergel76 posted 4 arguments, davidjohnson1953 posted 1 argument, poopy posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, tylathecat posted 1 argument, Gorgon posted 5 arguments, Mark posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 3 arguments, Brynn posted 7 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, Argnier555 posted 13 arguments to the disagreers part.
dbrock, Ashes, nivasprashanth, Keto, Marcon, chickboy1776, greencat, Andrewchaney69420, kameront, AuthorAspen44, NazyaDz, KateLynn, Fowling, Emihle, serinahannah, Akleesha, Dushonjj2, csmithwick, Daisythecat, BlackPetals, MrExuberant1, davidjohnson1953, wilsoergel76, Jakellutis, Rijavana, poopy, Vvvvvvv, ranwarrior, WiseWords, TJefferson and 175 visitors agree.
tylathecat, Ananya, Gorgon, Audrey, DeRosaDirt, Mark, Pietpompies94, Sonet, TheExistentialist, Aryaman999, TheNewHuman, Debater23, Brynn, SMNR, TJ, Argnier555 and 94 visitors disagree.
I don't understand how this is a agree or disagree question but my awnser is I don't think anyone has or will ever have the awnsers to big questions like that
the brain here doesn't have importance, just think that if we were in a simulation, it would be impossible for us to know it, because it's a simulation, we don't see more than a reality, and an intelligence like us, that knows and creates simulations couldn't be in a simulation
the fact that we could create another reality, which are veeeeeeeery far to be a reality so perfect and complex like the universe, doesn't mean that we live in a reality, I mean, the fact that we can create... planes, doesn't mean that the universe is am enormous plane, so the fact that we could create other realities, doesn't mean we live in a reality, there's more, if we would live in a reality, we could not make other realities, because we are in a reality, so the theory that we live in a reality is at the end, in every sense, something without evidence and an stupid theory, one of the most stupid theories I've heard.
the evidence is in our own current technology. we are already building complex simulations and in another 100 years, we probably will make a reality simulation indistinguishable from reality.
we will likely program beings like us who learn and evolve, and who will eventually develop their own technology and simulations. in the end there will be 1 real reality and countless simulations. the odds that we are in the single real reality is very much against us.
That theories are simply ridiculous, they don't have evidence, just some people think that, and the fact that someone thinks something doesn't mean that's an evidence, we are not in a simulation, because simply there is not evidence of that, it's not hard to understand
you are mistaken on what I am talking about. I am an atheist and agree with science. however, there are many logical arguments that are very possible.
do you know how we experience the world? our senses pick up movements/pressure/etc, and translate that into electricity. what we see are those electrical signals being translated by our brain.
now what if your brain was actually plugged into the matrix? it will keep getting all these electrical signals experiencing reality... but you are in a jar in a lab doing nothing. will you be able to tell the difference? it's really best not to think about them. but unlikely as they are, they are still very possible.
another famous theory is the simulation hypothesis. that one claims to actually be more likely then a real reality
back to Nebraska man.
newbraska man was a mistaken theory that was promptly challenged, defeated, and dismissed. proof of how the scientific system of brutal review is the gold standard.
why cant creationists tell the difference between a single scientist's claim, and a broadly accepted theory. the term "mr.x of authority" has no bearing in science unless it was retested, reviewed, and scrutinized 100x over by the peer review system. that fact defeats 90% of your documentaries bull claims.
we just started to investigate the universe, it's impossible for us to know everything, not like religion do, they think they know everything, they have a god that created and know everything, that's named mental selfishness, they have not the mental honesty to say( to many things te science don't know and is by the correct way to now it) "I don't know" they want to know it now, and it's obviously impossible to understand and discover something so complex like the universe in such a short time, that's another difference between science and religion, religion uses the faith to describe things, science uses the scientific method, which, cannot discover and know everything, and as we don't know it, we say "I don't know" and not invent an no logic explanation
It's better no to know and wait for the answer than know wrongly, what is called "belief"
That's simply ridiculous, science doesn't work with faith, it would destroy everything science's been doing, it's very ridiculous that science use faith, it has no sense, that's why they use the scientific method, it's not hard to understand, don't try to look for the way to make faith (religion) and scientific method (science) the same, they are not the same, what science says that's the future it's what will happen, the sun will do that, it's what every star do, why does our sun will not do what all the other stars do? just because is our sun? ridiculous, simply ridiculous.
a scientist got excited over a tooth that and made a mistake.... how is that the same as a an actual change in bacteria? even if both cases have an excited scientist, one saw actual change, and one made a mistake... your analogy seems to be really bad unless I'm missing something.
everything is belief. even things that are proven are said to be "proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt". there will always be a chance that you are a brain in a vat simply experiencing false electrical stimuli and nothing you experience is real, or a deceptive God planting false evidence or making exceptions to otherwise consistent phenomena. even science makes these rather obvious assumptions because without them the universe is chaotic and the whole effort to understand it is pointless.
no single person has ever had the time or resources to recreate every scientific experiment first hand. he did a few and trusted the rest. anything more is literally impossible and would require every person to start from square 1 greatly limiting the potential for progress. I am definitely making a distinction between blind faith like religion, but everything from the idea that the bank wont take all your money or that the sun will rise tomorrow requires some level of faith. we dont actually know the future, or much of anything else 100%. perhaps the quantum world of probably isnt all that alien to our own.
I never heard of Nebraska man either. what text books is that in?
I've never heard of the Nebraska Man, no. But, I would encourage you to not dismiss the bacteria, for example. What do you think evolution is? It is made of random mutation and/or natural selection.
This is all beside the point because evolution is not on trial here, God is. I still have seen no proof of God.
What you are thinking of in bacteria is probably a mutation of some sort and a scientist got over excited. Its happened before. Have you heard of the Nebraska man? They found a beaten up tooth and right away said it was a tooth of a caveman. After they actually analyzed it, it turned out the tooth belonged to a pig. Scienctists know that, but Nebraska man is still in evolution textbooks. I'm not sure, but a lot more in the textbooks could be a lie. Also, scienctists oberserved a fruit fly. The fruit fly was born with no sight and crippled wings. Scienctists just said it was evolving and getting better. Turned out it had a mutation. I feel sometimes that evolutionists get excited that they found something that could be evidence of their theory. This may not always be true, but the evidence of this is clear.
Not everything is a belief, when something is proven correctly, with scientific method, it has no sense we to call that "belief"
a belief is something that someone thinks, trust have FAITH of that, just that
and obviously, science is not a belief, science has not beliefs, physics are not beliefs, gravity is not a belief, every science has their content and they are not a belief, because, yes, there's someone that thinks that, but they have evidence proven by the scientific method, they used the scientific method to prove that, not the faith, so, that's a knowledge, science is a knowledge, not a belief, that two words must be treated with a lot of careful, if we use it without careful it could destroy our own argument.
We've seen evolution happen in real time more than once, mainly in bacteria and viruses, but also in some animals and insects, and even, to an extent, in humans! Whether evolution is true or not, that doesn't mean that God is real. Just because God is an explanation for the universe, does not mean that he is the right explanation. That's more God of the gaps talk. I could give you hundreds of explanations from different religions and what proof do you have that one is more right than the other?
Also, wil, your arguments against the theory of evolution are loaded, which is a fallacy.
And, animals are NOT well designed. To give just a few examples (but there are many), why would God give us an appendix which is just a ticking time bomb? Or wisdom teeth that our mouths are too small for? Or having the laryngeal nerve wrap around our heart instead of going straight to its destination? If God truly did create everything, he is the worst engineer.
everything is a belief, but some beliefs have reasons and proofs for them. evolution is the only way to explain everything we find regarding how life changes.
creation on a fundamental level (that an intelligent designer made everything) can just as easily work via the methods found by science, however the 6 day version of creation is absolute nonsense based on modern findings. the only way evolution is wrong and 6 day creation is right is if God is a trickster liar. if he is not deceptive, then he created via the big bang and guided life via evolution, a self improving system that is the most perfect option in an imperfect world.
There is actually a lot of evidence for both sides. I'd also like to see the millions of evidence of evolution. When you actually look at the facts and consider both sides of the argument i think it proves evolution could be wrong in a some ways. There's some things in ways that prove creation could be wrong. I believe in the creation. When I look at it with everything I know it shows creation is a better belief. I disagree with you when you say evolution is science and not a belief. There's science to both sides, but also a belief. You are BELIEVING in evolution. You can't say it's not a belief its science. You're still believing that its true. And there is evidence that proves God's existence. There's proof of evolution. Evolution could be true, creation could be true. I dont know. No one does, but for me, I believe in creation.
It's incredible what some religious people can think, an ape would say more logic things, at least they ignore science, not say that "scientifics believe" like one here said
Look, the science in his pure meaning doesn't believe, the science is knowledge, and knowledge and believings are opposites, religion believe, science know
Now, is the evolution a "belief"? No it's not, scientific method comproved it, evolution has more evidence than god, because god has no evidence
So you, and nobody can say "a person that BELIEVES in evolution" because nobody believes I evolution, evolution is a knowledge, you say " a person who KNOWS about the evolution" because, how I said, evolution is comproved by science, so, it's a knowledge.
So be careful with that words, because when you don't respect that, you go by the correct way to make religion a knowledge, and science a belief, and totally wrong, science uses the scientific method, so, science is a knowledge, and religion doesn't use the scientific method, it just uses you, the fact that you are not able to see the obvious things like evolution, and you say "it's just a belief, like our belief in god, so it deserves the same respect", sorry? when did you proved the existence of god? never, and you will never prove that, in the other hand, there are millions of evidence of evolution, what an hypocrisy, some believers are just silly, there are ones that are very clever, that can investigate and make their own theories of life, but others that just speak without knowing nothing, just watching some videos on YouTube they think that are Einstein, and they did never read a book in their life, please people, start being a bit clever
Well, JDAWG, I think God did create the earth, universe, and heaven. Now I wasn't saying the bible directly proves the existence of God. When you break things down of the earth and the physics of things on it and how things fit in with it, you can put some things from the bible into whatever it is, it starts to make sense. For example time and matter. The bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So He created time like in the beginning and matter, the earth. Now, the big bang doesnt explain where that explosion came from. Scientists cant and will never explain what it came from because something cant come from nothing. You dont see that ever.
About the flaws you were thinking is because of sin. No one is perfect, everyone sins and makes mistakes because of there sinful nature. When the earth was created sin entered the world. I dont have a clue why God created sin in this world. No one can understand what God was thinking. Our brains are to small to understand everything and a lot of things. Adam and Eve commited the first sin and from that the earth fell into sin and darkness.
One thing I think that can prove God and against evolution is the entricate design of animals and how we can live on earth. Animals have such a cool design and interesting things about them. Animals were made perfectly to fit their habitat. I really dont think all of this happened by chance from a combination of scattered chemicals and matter. It's weird to think of this. God made us so we wouldnt have to manually breathe and work our insides to stay alive. We started out in the world with perfect conditions and everything we needed to stay alive. We can live today fine in our conditions. So basically evolutionists believe that everything just came together through a long period of time. Only a all powerful God could create all of this.
nobody can make a planet
JDAWG, this is a discussion that needs to be had and requires a lot more study. There is no explanation for what caused the Big Bang, where the material for matter originates. Whether a sentient being is the catalyst for this is still in question, and sentience itself cannot be biologically explained or recreated. There very well could exist spirits, a god, and so also an opposed spirit called Lucifer, and you raise an interesting point that his morals are subjectively his, imposed upon his creation, and what happens in the afterlife? There are instances that are not scientifically explainable of out of body experiences, back to life experiences and what not, that suggests a separation between body, soul, and spirit. Can science explain those cases? We must stay open minded and get to the bottom of this. What do you think hypothetically if there is a supernatural realm of existence, what are it's dimensions? Is it an alternate universe? Though you might not care, only what science says, what can be said about the cases wherein people physically escape themselves and look down on their body?
Okay, you're oversimplifying the opposing arguments to make it easy to refute them. And, the theory of evolution is not the same as the big bang theory or original genesis (I think that's what that one is called), so you can't automatically connect the two. And, just saying that it is more logical isn't proof. I will gladly admit that I don't know whether big bang is true, or God is real, or original genesis. But, I don't assume that any of those are true until I see evidence, which I've seen a lot for evolution (which has actually been proven) and none for God. So, don't use the God of the gaps, please. (Also, if God made everything then he is a really bad engineer and I can point out a lot of silly flaws if you'd like)
I do not believe in any objective moral standard, and I discuss that in length on another thread and would love to talk to you about it there c: But, just to add, that even if our morals were based on his, they would still be God's subjective morals, so it's still not objective. Or, it's objective which means that there are some things that God is not powerful enough to change. Also, that means that he's broken them many times.
You cannot use the Holy Bible to prove the existence of God because that is a fallacious appeal to authority and a circular argument.
If you wanna prove God, you can't use the Holy Bible. You have to prove him with a logical argument, which I have yet to find one and would love for you to prove me wrong.
God exists and there are so many ways to prove it. Evolution is clearly not true. Evolutionists believe that that an "explosion created everything from literally nothing" which sounds pretty stupid. They believe that we came from a huge puddle of chemicals which also sounds stupid. The belief in creationism is actually a lot more logical than evolution. If God wasnt real there would be no moral standard of right or wrong and the Bible explains so much of that. People would have there own standards of right or wrong. That means if someone wanted to steal from someone else because it was right in there own eyes, it would be right. Then the person getting stolen from says thats wrong because it is wrong then theres conflict. That is only one reason to so many. I could go on and on about why God is real. Kent Hovind explains a lot about this.
I don't think anyone on this thread has said that God doesn't exist, only argued against his existence, which isn't the same as arguing for his nonexistence.
I don't believe in god, I'm just analyzing both arguments, god's existence and god's not existance, which doesn't mean I'm not neutral, I'm atheist, yes, but in this kind of debates im very neutral and analyze everything, that's the reason why I'm atheist, science is the only part that can give me "true" or verified knowledge, because of the scientific method, being neutral i learned that
Wait, I'm so confused. Are you arguing for or against the existence of God?
First, science don't have evidence of god, so, don't believe in god, so, science couldn't be created by god, he would know that science works with a scientific method, which, curiously gives us the certainty of the god's inexistence, if science was "created" by "something" it's not god, it has no sense a perfect god would be so masochistic
science doesn't exist as a material object, what science is, is not a believing, it's a knowledge of life, universe, whatever, everything that has evidence of it's existence has a science, it's curious that there's no a god science, because religion is not a knowledge, doesn't use scientific method, it's a believing.
Of God created everything, including science, and science and God are not compatible?... Firstly, whose fault was that? And secondly, how does that make any sense?
That's it, science and religion are not the same, scientific opinion says that god cannot be proven by the science, it's impossible to prove it with the scientific method, but it's not bad that religious people look for scientific evidences about god, and not by the faith, i admire that kind of religious people, they deserve respect.
Well, my brain used to tell me that chocolate for every meal was super great and that I was the smartest four year old because I skipped a grade. Both of which turned out to be not necessarily true. Like Argnier said, we should use the scientific method to prove God, noooot our instincts and/or emotions
Love is something that happens in your brain, nothing related with a "soul".
Prove to quit your brain from your body and look if you feel love, or depression, or something.
God's believings, and believings in general, are all inside your brain, everything is there, you don't believe in god, you are an atheist, your brain is the religious one, your brain says you to believe in god. Just think this: if your brain wouldn't never received the information of believing in god, you would be an atheist, without knowing it, everyone is atheist until our brain recieves the information of god, unfortunately, a lot of people recieve it, and other recieve it and have the intelligence of refuse it and control their brain, and not their brain control them.
I think everyone has to believe what they want, and the faith they choose is ok, but when you treat to make faith something scientific or proven, that's the problem, faith is not scientific, doesn't use the scientific method and, obviously, everything you say using faith (arguments of god existence) is not actually true, because the unic evidence of that is that you believe in it, ridiculous really?
Now, when we use the scientific method in something we don't know, that's when we go by the correct way to find the truth, that's the science way, and the faith, the religious way.
Umm?... Are you for or against the argument of faith?
Every argument about god is behind faith, it hiddes behind it, faith allows us to believe in everything, literally in EVERYTHING, and have "logic" arguments for that, what happens is that, when we use faith for believing in something, that has no scientific method or scientific evidence, it's just believing because you have faith, but the truth is that THE UNIVERSE IS COMPLEX ENOUGH FOR NOT TAKE CARE OF YOUR FAITH, WHICH IT DOESN'T CARE HOW STRONG IT IS, IT WILL NOT CORRUPT THE UNIVERSE, IT WILL CORRUPT YOUR MIND
Please define "love" and explain how "God" created it/is necessary for it.
I believe if "god" was not real u would not have the whole dimension of love.
that's an amazing vocabulary for a 10 year old!
I disagree that we shouldnt discuss things that cannot be proven. we certainly shouldnt demean the opinions of others on such matters, but respectful discussion is always a welcome thing. hearing the opinions of others can help refine your own beliefs. you said that we should familiarize ourselves with the beliefs of others, but how can that be done if we do not share and debate our opinions on this subject?
as for the minds of young people: hate and bias do not need to be taught. they are human features that are part of who we are. you may be too young to understand this now, but there are billions of people on the planet and our minds cannot comprehend that many individuals. we will always have to make generalizations to make our way through the world without getting overwhelmed. the key is to notice your generalizations, and to remember that even if it may be true of many (30%), it is not usually true for the majority.
bias isnt just something we do when judging people, it's something we do in every aspect, from our beliefs to the food we eat. even scientists who actively want to eliminate their own bias have to do double blind experiments because bias is always there, small and large, in everything we do.
Jem if you're interested in public speaking I recommend avoiding blanket statements for the most part until you know how to back them up properly.
Jem you have proof of that statement?
Every argument here is invalid and opinionated. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs so nobody is in the wrong by submitting their opinions but people should not be arguing on something that in unexplainable by even the greatest scientists whereas the belief that God is real can't be explained and is only established in ones mind and general upbringing. Today's world can't just familiarize themselves with their counterparts beliefs and that is something that needs to change because no matter how much you want it or despise it, WE WILL ALWAYS LIVE IN A DIVERSE WORLD.
I am a ten year old girl who is interested in public speaking and debating and I feel that the youngest generations who's minds aren't born biased are made to hate people different to them by older generations who were raised in the EXACT same way or experiences shaped their beliefs. STOP AFFECTING OUR IMAGE OF THE WORLD FORMED IN YOUR OWN LIGHT!
btw Jake. you should look into quantum fluctuations.
the classic belief is that empty vacuum is the default form, and that stuff must be created. but an empty vacuum is actually very unstable and constantly creates matter and antimatter called quantum fluctuations.
2 plates put close together surrounded by a vacuum get pushed together by these fluctuations meaning that this effect is real and measurable by direct experimentation.
considering we do not have a perfect vacuum, even in outer space, it is possible that before matter (and after the universe gets ripped apart by dark energy) even more massive and stable matter can be generated, like a whole new universe.
this creates a cycle: vacuum - universe - dark energy - vacuum - universe -
"You don't know that energy exists to begin with since you assume that the effects of the big bang were caused by something which you assume to be energy though you don't know it to be anything"
What are you talking about here? We can measure the energy of the big bang by tracing the background radiation (energy is literally the definition of radiation).
"....because a consciousness is the only thing that fits the characteristic that is impulse, much better than still energy or potential energy."
so you're claiming to know that there can be no natural explanation to the existence of the universe? Where did you come by this knowledge or are you simply making an "argument from ignorance" otherwise known as an "argument from incredulity"?
"Humans do exist, but the very fabric of existence is not physical at all, that includes humans as well as atoms as well as quarks. It's all frequency of vibration"
oh boy; you still don't understand quantum physics. It has nothing to do with "vibrations". Bosons bind quarks and gluons to form Hadrons (the smallest particle of mass; like electrons). The definition of Boson is a particle with either 0 spin or an integer spin. That is not "vibration". The second a Boson binds a gluon and a quark you have "matter". Matter is defined as a substance that occupies space and has inertia. The second a quark and a gluon are bound by a boson, you get mass and therefore inertia and the ability to occupy space. So how is that not the existence of "matter". Just because you want to conflate quantum physics to aid your point doesn't make it true. Especially considering that you clearly don't understand the subject.
"It's all sound, like the Word of God"
no it's not. Sound is a wave, not a particle or a field. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about in regards to quantum physics so stop trying to conflate it to suit your needs.
"Before anything existed, it was all space and time."
Um....No; space, time, and matter came into existence simultaneously. Space and time are the same thing in physics. So without space there is no time. Meaning there is no such thing as "before" the big bang. Also, how do you know your claim is true. Please provide evidence, not simple assertions.
"So far the characteristics of this force are that it is non physical and acts on it's own without the need for another variable."
What are you talking about the "force" being non physical? We can see the energy of the big bang. It's called background radiation, it's how we modeled the big bang in the first place. Furthermore, why do you just attribute intentionality to energy? If physics exists, and we know everything that happened after Time=0 (i.e. the big bang) can occur without intentionality, then why must intentionality exist? You're simply asserting that it must because you cannot fathom a universe without it.
"....will cannot exist in a non conscious physical world since it cannot be predicted with the scientific method, so it must have had an external source."
wow......this makes so little sense it hurt my brain. What would preclude free-will from existing without God? Free will is simply the ability to act in spite of deterministic circumstances. What part of the natural world precludes us from acting freely? Just because something cannot be scientifically explained doesn't make it supernatural either. Science can't analyze art or predict it, does this fact make all art divine? By your claim you're also asserting that science will never be able to explain free-will or the limitations of it. Are you really arogant enough to make such a claim, because it has to be an implied claim at the least in order for your point to stand.
"Why not God? It's not out of the question....."
First of, by which statistical formulation did you come up with this 1:infinite nonsense; are you just making stuff up like your quantum physics nonsense? Second of; no God is not out of the question; it is just highly unlikely. If we look at the universe, I think we can all agree that no "God" is necessary for anything post T=0. So "God" is only a factor in that brief moment of T=0. You are therefore claiming, that it is more likely that there is a "God" than not because we don't have a scientific explanation as of yet to explain the events leading up to T=0. If we took this in reverse and said that no natural phenomena could explain anything that happened at T>0 but we had a viable explanation of T=0 and thus concluded all must be natural you'd rightfully call us delusional. How is your claim so different?
gravity is a force that pulls massive objects together. that is not believed, but known. and it does so by bending space around it, which is why even light is affected by it.
all of that was verified with repeated experimentation, not opinion. I have no idea what you are taking about.
Well gravity is an unknown phenomenon that can't be physically observed, but is assumed to be a force that pulls on mass. The more mass something has, the heavier it is, and it's assumed that something exists to cause that based on a man's hypothesis. Now it's a theory. However gravity can be defied by altering frequencies with sound.
Can I have an example of this?
It depends on what you call science. The mainstream science seems to disregard all characteristics about the physical world and rely on personal opinion.
The difference between most scientists and religious people is when they propose something they don't believe it to be true until the evidence supports it. This is called a hypothesis. Religious people will believe a lot of things without evidence. Don't strawman scientists who are merely proposing ideas. A proposal is not a declaration of belief.
Also both do not require faith at all. Science is supported by evidence whether or not you like it. Science is a process of finding the most likely answer it is not a faith.
You managed to completely miss my point. Congratulations.
Before anything existed, it was all space and time. Then suddenly matter. So we observe it, measure it, and try to understand how matter came into being so logically there must have been an unknown force that made it. The unknown force is assumed to exist based on logic and at one point this unknown force was all that existed, then suddenly it formed matter. So far the characteristics of this force are that it is non physical and acts on it's own without the need for another variable.
Some call it energy; those people are called scientists. Others call it God; those people are called religious. However both require faith and energy does not meet all of the characteristics like a consciousness such as God and it so happens that free will cannot exist in a non conscious physical world since it cannot be predicted with the scientific method, so it must have had an external source. Why not God? It's not out of the question. It's already widely excepted that the impossible happened that still nothingness acted on it's own and created everything of which the odds are one in infinity.
Jake logic is not always correct and does not always lead us to the correct conclusions. Logically Earth isn't moving and it is the Sun that rotates around it. Logically water moves with a wave but it's actually energy moving. Logically it seems to be colder out when there's precipitation but it's actually warmer. Don't rely on logic for such a big claim. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't know or there isn't enough information yet. Also you're wrong about science and free will. There are a few studies suggesting free will may be an illusion or not. But we haven't done enough research to know for sure.
You don't know that energy exists to begin with since you assume that the effects of the big bang were caused by something which you assume to be energy though you don't know it to be anything. This might as well be the energy of the gaps theory. It's irrefutable that energy cannot act on it's own. There must be another variable for it to form anything that is the size of a pin's head. To this you present an effect that requires more than one variable. An unknown force that acts on it's own to create anything must have a will to do so or another variable. That's where you observe the effects of it an come to the logical conclusion that it's God that has caused the big bang, because a consciousness is the only thing that fits the characteristic that is impulse, much better than still energy or potential energy. You can predict the motivations of free will, but you cannot predict free will with biology because it is something that is external, not physical, otherwise you'd be able to predict it with the scientific method. You can't predict it, because free will is not determined by chance, but intent so it must have a source outside of the physical world. And it seems someone named Existential doesn't grasp the nature of existence itself. Atoms are indeed atoms, but the point is that they do not exist as you might think. Everything has a smaller component. Humans do exist, but the very fabric of existence is not physical at all, that includes humans as well as atoms as well as quarks. It's all frequency of vibration. "Matter" will continuously manifest into smaller and smaller particles because it is not physical to begin with. It's all sound, like the Word of God. The universe is one sentence, both physically and in translation. What scientists call Earth, the planet which they've named, it has an origin. It derives from the Word of God which first called it Earth in Genesis, and we will just accept that and pretend that we discovered the planet and named it ourselves. You may have studied quantum mechanics, but you have not come to the knowledge of the truth.
You know your wife because you love her and fellowship with her. Well that is how I know God I love Him and have a fellowship with him.
I disagree that just because something is outside space-time it doesnt need a beginning.
if you see it literally as there was no beginning outside of time, then it means there is no future or present either. rather then a being who can interact with all of time at once it is a being that cannot interact, or even move, because it is simply a snapshot in everlasting stasis. motion happens in time.
So this makes almost no sense......You seem to have no understanding of how quantum physics works and yet you're trying to make an argument based on it.
"In the beginning there was energy and it created everything. (How?)"
the answer to this is simply ''we don't know''. However, just because we don't know doesn't automatically make it "God". Inserting "God" is simply using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. So it does nothing to further your argument for God.
"We observe the effects of an unknown force and call it potential energy"
No we don't....potential energy is simply stored energy. A ball at the top of a hill has potential energy and a ball rolling down the hill has kinetic energy. You're not using these terms correctly at all.....
"because it has no will and it can't create anything because there is no other variable in existence to act upon energy to make it form matter in the first place"
you're pre-supposing that will is necessary to create matter when in fact we know how the Higgs Boson Field actually bestows mass to gluons and quarks. The Higgs boson has no will and yet it creates mass.
"anthropoids that are less complex than AI and behave unpredictably since biology which uses the scientific method to predict natural occurrences cannot predict conscious behavior"
Biology can absolutely predict conscious behavior (to a degree). It can predict mating seasons, it can predict aggression levels, problem solving skills, etc.... I think you're mistaken consciousness with free will, which science of course can't predict.
"An atom doesn't even exist; you look at it from a microscope and it's made of smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons...."
This has to be the silliest thing ever said. Just because you can break down something into smaller parts doesn't mean the bigger "thing" doesn't exist. If I told you: "you don't exist because I can break you down into organ systems, then further into organs, then further in tissues, then further into organelles, then further into cells, then further into organelles, then further into complex molecules, then further into atoms, etc..." you'd rightfully call me crazy for claiming it means you don't exist.
"so now quarks are thought to be the smallest form of matter".....Quarks are not matter. Only Hadrons are matter (the smallest Hadron would be an electron).
so you don't understand quantum physics, it's ok, but don't try and just make stuff up because it suits your point.
Why does that matter? I wouldn't care if people needed proof of that. There aren't millions of people who claim to have a wife they can't prove. If you want me to believe in your god give me proof.
Do you have a wife? If you do prove it.
jradin you have proof of this?
He is real. I spoke to Him this morning and He spoke to me.
In order to not believe in God, the only other explanation is this: In the beginning there was energy and it created everything. (How?) energy concentrated into the mass of the head of pin forming matter (How do you know?) We observe the effects of an unknown force and call it potential energy.
That belief is insanely more ridiculous than a belief in God. The potential energy is not real to begin with, it is just assumed to be real just like God, only unlike God it cannot act on it's own because it has no will and it can't create anything because there is no other variable in existence to act upon energy to make it form matter in the first place, also it is part of the space and time continuum, so said energy must have had a beginning, whereas God exists outside of the realm of space and time and so he does not require a begging, plus he acts on his own will, something which energy does not have. It's likely that consciousness has an external source that exists outside of the physical world and that external source is the unknown force that is assumed to be 'potential energy' but is really God that gives the "breath of life" that can exist in the simplest lifeforms such as anthropoids that are less complex than AI and behave unpredictably since biology which uses the scientific method to predict natural occurrences cannot predict conscious behavior, neither can once conscious beings be emulated or brought back to life even by reproducing the same conditions as when it was alive because the consciousness that is the breath of life has left it.
There is only observable implication that everything was created by an omnipresent consciousness that is assumed to be energy, but lacks certain characteristics, and so said potential energy is really God that breaths the breath of life into matter which is really condensed energy. Matter does not exist, everything is vibration. If you assume that matter is atomic, then what is an atom? An atom doesn't even exist; you look at it from a microscope and it's made of smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons, which were then thought to be the smallest forms of matter until a stringer microscope was invented that discovered that protons, neutrons, and electrons don't exist, that they are really made of quarks, so now quarks are thought to be the smallest form of matter, but only because there is no microscope strong enough to discover what quarks are made of. What does this mean? Matter is an illusion.
Oh well... No one can claim to be capable of disproving something, that would imply superhuman insight into everything there is in the universe both within and outside of our spectrum of cognition and perception... As well as no believer would ever need proof for what they believe to exist... I think the argument is futile really... If we can all agree not to hurt each other that would be good enough for everyone...
I'm not a believer in God, but I'm not a big fan of the "no before the big bang" hypothesis. how does an event happen without time? wouldnt it be just a stasis? nothing changes without time.
as you said, it's possible theres a multiverse in a megaverse medium, and as these self contained verses all have their own space, obviously they all have their own time. just because our time came into existence at the big bang, doesnt mean it didnt happen in time, just the megaverses time. that seems much more logical but simply pushes back the question to "where did the megaverse come from"
the God answer is just as valid, just as much of a guess, and just as ineffective. the question of "where did God come from" quickly follows, and any claim of ever-existence can simply be attributed to the megaverse or whatever. without proof the natural explanation is equally a guess.
in the end, whether using the natural explanation or a divine one, the problem boils down to choice of ever existence or creation ex nihilo. which do you prefer?
The argument of infinite regress is obsolete. We have a starting point for the universe, the big bang. The question of "before the big bang" is simply a show of ignorance on physics as space = time and thus before space, there was no time and thus no "before" the big bang.
The question of the "cause" of the big bang is simply the same question asked in a slightly different format. This is some times referred to the "argument from efficient cause" or "Kalam Cosmological Argument". The problem with this argument is that it
A) ignores the fact that quantum physics has shown us that some things don't have a cause and thus the big bang may not have a cause
B) ignores the very credible possiblity of a multiverse or megaverse
C) it rests on the the "argument from ignorance fallacy" as it essentially states "there is not enough proof for a (natural causes to the universe), therefore its wrong and must be b (God)".
----> the problem with this argument is that you haven't disproven that there can be a natural cause to the universe. You're simply saying because we don't know for sure, it's is false. If this argument were valid, God would be non-existent as there is no proof for it either.
D) It rests on the "God of the gaps fallacy". Meaning you're simply inserting God into the gaps of science rather than providing proof of God on it's own merits. This essentially means I can insert any deity in the Gap and the argument would look the same. For example I could state: we don't know the cause of the big bang and thus it is proof that the "flying spaghetti monster" created the universe. This is the exact same argument you're making.
God is a fantastical concept that rests on the suspension or alterations of the laws of physics. The big bang and the quantum fields that likely generated it, don't rely on this suspension. Since no physical laws had to be suspended to create the universe by purely natural means, and a suspension of the laws of physics has never been observed, it would seem the more likely answer to the question of "how did the universe begin" would be "through natural means" rather than "through magical means".
yes he is real. just once vanish everything u see around u and imagine who has created this world, nd if u say that universe is creation of matter or partical all those stuff which u studies in science then just go little earlier than that nd wonder for a while how these partical and matters are created .... there must be the one who has done this nd who has done ths is God....cuz God is the who created us created ths world created this universe created everything...
God does not exist. For thousands of years people have asked some difficult questions; what is the sun and the moon? why do they come up and go down? for instance. For the same length of time people had to believe there was some explanation they could not see, after all they could see the sun but didn't know what it was or why it went up and down. Driven by a need to explain such things stories were developed over time, fictitious beings must have created them, or be holding them up. There were so many explainable phenomenon that eventually a few people agreed that they all must be explained by a single solution (the scientists out there will start to relate and worry at this point as this sounds scarily similar to the "Theory of Everything") One source for all the explainable things we can observe. As the human race developed our desire to explain every did too, so did our unease at not knowing. So when Moses suggested the God solution in Genesis and associated explanations from other religions were proposed we were all very keen to jump on board, our anxieties of not knowing suddenly taken away. Oh, and life after death is a great way to expel the fear of death too. Don't get me wrong, faith exists, and people with the ability to have faith in something they cannot see or touch such as God I admire greatly, that takes an immense inner strength. But I read Genesis and A brief History of Time, one was a story based on what could be seen but not explained, the other was a fact backed explanation of what could be observed, and I chose the later. Science has eventually proven how all things were created and that there is no life after death, but faith will survive, if not only to protect us from the fear of the truth - it was billions to one that life evolved on this planet, but with the billions of planets out there it was a certainty that it evolved on one of them and it didn't require a divine hand, just the right physical and chemical conditions. Life after death; your sole is what you leave behind not what goes somewhere else without your body, its the impact on the people you leave behind, positive or negative and there lies your heaven and hell. Did you do good in your lifetime and leave a positive impact on the world, people wishing you were still here, or did you squander it on the bad and the negative leaving the people you knew glad your gone.
also to know where God comes from with your finite mind means you possess a knowledge greater than God which is humanly impossible
God is real atheist if you have questions please ask them because who is God , theology study of god , where there us God there is thinking, christians have to have a thinking faith, thinking comes questions
Notanidiot's name is inaccurate, no one is two words.
God is real, read the Bible, it is the first recording of the Earth being spherical (Isa 40:22). If the Bible was correct about that, then it must be correct about God's existence. It also has genetic tracings that lead to the first man, Adam, and his wife Eve. If someone can trace your genes back to the first link, then you have been traced back to Adam, and eventually God. Then will you believe? This family line spans almost 4,000 years, to the New Testament. After that, you just have 2018 years to trace back to this line. Abraham begot all of the human race, the Bible is correct. The Earth is round. When will the athiests learn.
Najam, stay on topic. You've already made five billion goldang threads on the police. If anyone here wants to debate it, you'll find them there. You're not going to spark discussion that wouldn't otherwise happen here, you'll only be annoying everyone.
To ask a question such as this is impossible to answer. Noone exactly knows. Noone has exact proof as to God not existing. We merely try to put 2 and 2 together. It's not fact that he exists and it's not fact that he doesn't. Anyone tells you any different they're wrong.
The false gods are anyone who says they can shoot you with a gun, and you can't shoot back because some other human on the planet told them it's okay to only shoot those who can't shoot back.
It's all false gods and cowards claiming that those are the laws on Earth.
Hmm.... Well, if time is anyways changing speed, getting faster and faster, there really isn't a default, just relative differences in tempo. As for the issue of gravity, I suppose that'd depend.... hadn't ever occurred to me. If the important thing is proximity of mass, then a dense universe would be slow, but if its net gravitational pull, then it would not.
I would think if you're correct, then, since gravity is balanced out around the center of most masses, time would move faster in the center of any planet and star and *maybe* black holes, as well as at gravitational centers of orbits. So there are definitely implications for either.
On alternative ideas, I've heard of the one you mentioned, and I'm open to it. I more consider that with at least some minimum of possibilities that the universe is eternal or whatever infrastructure it might exist within is eternal, and that some have possible mechanisms we've demonstrated, we don't have need for hypotheses that are unparsimonious and unfalsifiable. It's a wild goose chase, with perfectly tame geese standing right there next to us.
I do have an alternative theory, are you familiar with quantum fluctuations?
pretty much, a vacuum appears to be an unstable state and on a quantum level particles are constantly popping in and out of existence. with dark energy accelerating the expansion constantly it is believed that at one point it could end up affecting the subatomic particles well before the black holes evaporate.
that sounds like it will create conditions far more extreme then the vacuums seen in the current universe, and may create big, more stable, and more energetic particles, some of which may become expanding universes. every time dark energy rips a universe apart, a new one takes its place out of the nothingness.
rather than time slowing in the past, wouldn't it be more proper to say time is speeding up now as the past was the actual default rate? the original event did happen, can you really postpone an origin event and pretend that something that already happened never actually will? the cause remains an open question.
in addition, what effect would gravity even have in a homogeneous soup with no center? wouldn't it be like air pressure, pushing down on us with the same force that it pushes out in all directions, effectively making it nonexistent?
Alright, I think I can do this and work at the same time.
Don't tell my manager.
So the idea isn't that you're assuming, it's that you're wagering. Just like in statistics.
If you want to be more technically accurate, it's better to say we have infinite null hypotheses, one for each unfalsifiable possibility, and when falsifiability becomes possible, you can test the idea against the null hypothesis, and you get the picture.
I'm not talking about storing the sum total of human knowledge, but about what it'd take to store the data required to understand the universe in its totality. To know a system in totality, you must have another system equal to or larger than it, right? You can only have a system with a subsystem equal to it within it if that system has infinite resolution.
Which, for reasons I expounded upon and you have further expounded upon, is impossible.
On time, the concept is not just that there's no time before space time, but that space time stretches infinitely back, so that there's no beginning, just infinite regression. If you look at time dilation, it makes more sense. Time within a volume moves more slowly the more mass is crammed in that space. This was one of the foundational principles of special relativity, and you can prove it with two of the right kinds of clock, (one as a, control,) and a high altitude plane flight.
So if the universe is expanding, it is easy to intuit that it's becoming less dense. Thus, space is, on average, moving faster.
If you had an infinitely dense singularity, time would be completely still.
So the closer you get to such a singularity, the slower time will move --- you can't possibly reach that state!
Now imagine you're tracking time backwards, everything is getting more dense, time is moving more slowly. Will you ever reach a beginning? The closer you get to a singular point of space composing the universe, the more time you need to take to observe space time shrink by the same amount. You'll never reach that singularity.
So the idea that time doesn't exist before the singularity is just one way of phrasing things --- another way is that the universe has always been getting bigger and faster, and its never been another way.
Its a very parsimonious idea with lots of evidence, but I wouldn't say it's demonstrated beyond a doubt.
Brb, got to work and stuff. Will address the rest later.
I think you are under the impression that assuming lack of existence is any less an assumption than assuming existence. assuming atoms, cells, and air didn't exist didn't progress science, neither did it keep people from rejecting these things at first when proof was given. the problem is not in the hypothesis, whatever form it takes, but the assumption, positive or negative.
also a null hypothesis as used here (which isnt the official use which has something to do with error margins in results) is an oxymoron. a hypothesis by definition is something that seeks to be proven. a null hypothesis seeks to prove a negative. a negative cannot be proven. thus a null hypothesis is not a hypothesis.
knowledge is not infinite either. books and especially servers have proven to be more than capable of storing all of our knowledge. especially considering we were talking about our current knowledge. I'm not sure where infinities came into this.
the infinite answer is never satisfying to me. once you think about it, it becomes nonsense. infinite space would require infinite energy and matter. that would negate the law of conservation as you would be able destroy half the energy in the universe, or even double it, without ever changing the actual amount. thus making the law of conservation meaningless. infinities in time also become nonsensical imo, althought it's harder to describe.
personally I find ALL the natural explanations as unsatisfying as the supernatural explanation. it always comes down to either creation ex nhilo or some form of infinity. the current explanation of "there was no time before the big bang so the question of before is senseless" is senseless itself because events happen in time and without some form of hyperspace-time, it would never have set it motion. and if there is a hyperspace-time, we just moved the goal posts and are stuck with the same question.
I'm mostly not arguing for or against a, position, so much as describing one.
Booked and servers still don't provide infinite storage. Storage might be infinite for all intents and purposes at this moment, but you could never possibly store the data describing every specific quantum state of the universe throughout all time without an even larger universe to use as storage.
A loophole would be infinitely resolute space, like what you could use to describe a fractal in totality, but distance becomes meaningless at the Plank width, and full of quantum fluctuations that will introduce noise to your server over time and degrade it.
We can and do use data compression of all kinds, but some minimum of detail is always lost when doing so.
As for god existing or not, I'm not believing such a thing doesn't exist, so much as wagering. Non existence of a thing is always more likely, in absence of evidence, than existence. The wager could be wrong, but it rarely is, and thus, it's the best we have.
And besides, null hypotheses remove a
lot of confirmation bias from the system. Speeds scientific industry up. Lots of true hypotheses were rejected evem after proven because of prior assumptions first formulated and believed when unfalsifiable.
the brain doesn't need infinite storage. we have books, and now servers for that.
I'm not sure what fears your talking about. I'm not talking about a specific religion with arbitrary mythology, I'm talking about the idea of a God, one that need not even ever spoken to us. seeing as both sides have unfalsifiable ideas, why would you say that "we must wager that no deity exists"?
I never said we should have an answer. I'm not sure what your arguing against. I'm just wondering how, in the absence of an ultimate answer, you can do confidently claim no diety can possibly exist?
As for knowing any first event, or even if there was a first event instead of an infinite chains, or a loop of causality, we simply don't. If we can't know something, we don't. No need to pretend we have answers. Indeed, the thought we must know everything, or can know, is simply a cognitive bias. Blame the brain for not having infinite storage space, I guess.
If they are unfalsifiable, we have no such necessity.
After all, any hypotheses not falsifiable is up against infinite contradictory hypotheses. You can't be a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer if you're really a brain outside a vast hooked up to a computer, or if you're a computer simulation, or if you're pure spirit, dreaming of the world.... we can suppose infinite unfalsifiable possibilities, each with infinite others contradicting them, and infinite others complimenting them, or building upon them, as well. Any situation you can name, I can posit an additional, somehow undetected banana peel lies in wait.
Infinite of these feature negative consequences for any action we could take. The chance that next step you take as you walk summoning a demon is the same as that chance not taking that step out of fear of summoning a demon.
Will there ever be a point in wasting previous brain time on infintesimal, unfalsifiable fears?
and what if you must choose between 2 unfalsifiable claims?
unless you know a falsifiable answer to how reality came to be. even assuming no multiverse, we know most of how the universe came to be, how things played out as the event unfolded, but we have no idea what triggered it to begin with.
I guess I should say that I consider the word false to be best defined as many logicians and scientists do: as unsound, neither tautological nor in evidence, arbitrary to what we can plan our actions about, etc..
I don't mean to say must so much as should. Its a moral imperative that we maintain congruence and parsimony of belief and evidence,
After all, if we accept a claim that is neither parsimonious nor falsifiable, then what if that possibility becomes falsifiable, and then is unsound? This has occurred many times throughout human history, such as the fall of Geocentrism or Creationism, and we're still suffering the consequences. And not just ideological conflict is possible. Imagine if rockets were invented prior to geocentrism, and a mission was launched into space on its assumptions?
And we see tragedy occur on account of religious assumptions all the time, from deaths on account of faith healers to death by hands of psychic surgeons. We waste a great deal of money, time, and worst of all, human life, on these technically logical but unsound concepts.
"With current evidence and the most advanced scientific criteria, we must wager that no deities exist."
I dont think that any such necessities exists. literal religious belief is certainly misguided, but the idea of a creator is not without logical merit, especially with our current most advanced scientific evidence and criteria.
The parsimonious explanation for your belief in god is not that you know him to exist, but a complex psychological phenomenon that is often called "Illusion of External Agency." This explanation also has more predictive power. For example, Christian Theism predicted god can inform you of things you didn't now. IoEA predicts that no Christian will demonstrate their percieved communications of their deity providing them with novel information, and I have never observed otherwise.
Furthermore, atheism is a wager based on Ockham's Razor and falsifiability. This means it's as tenable a position as, say, the position that acupuncture is a theatrical placebo. Its not really a position so much as it is a prediction. With current evidence and the most advanced scientific criteria, we must wager that no deities exist. We are still free to test contradictory hypotheses, and if we find that one negates this null hypothesis,so we change our position. It really is that simple.
Sabertooth, did you seriously appeal to formal debate rules when someone called you out for trying to obfuscate your position on the debate topic? You're obviously taking the position in this debate that you actually believe, so using what you said elsewhere to extrapolate exactly that is perfectly permissible.
I spoke to a Muslim about this the other day and she could not give me hard evidence that there is in fact a god. I asked her to show me some and she said it is in the Qur'an... I do not mean to be offensive but if that is the case I could believe that Narnia exists and Aslan is god. She responded by saying "well how about science books how can you prove that oxygen is in the air although can't smell, hear or see it. i responded with "yes but currently: oxygen death toll = 0, Religion death toll = countless". Therefore even if there was a god or not, and I'm assuming not, is He truly worth all the lives He is costing?
"certainly one can find irrefutable proof of god in one's heart"
..No you can't. "Proof" means evidence. How can you have "evidence" that you can't share with others? Evidence is something that can be apparent to all. Not just one person. Or are you saying the way Christians live there lives, no longer disbelieving in the One True God, should be evidence to the whole world He is real? If the narrative of the Bible is logical, how can other narratives also be logical? Only the Bible tells us the Gospel. That God loves us and made it possible for us to have a personal relationship with Him. That all our sins can be washed away and we can live life forgiven. No other religion or creed offers this narrative which so logically solves the human problem of life.
certainly one can find irrefutable proof of god in one's heart, however I'm sure you've noticed the difficulty of communicating this evidence to those who haven't already found it themselves. there is no physical evidence pointing decisively at god. at best you have a logical narrative that is very possible, but so are other options.
It is good you know facts exist regardless if we have discovered them yet. No one can disprove the God of the Bible's existence and therefore atheism is an unobtainable position. Many atheists don't realize that. But you are wrong to say you can't know if God exists. He does. I know Him. A belief is not a guess. A belief has no evidence readily available. A belief can be factual. And all things factual are true. And my belief in the One True God is true :) as it is for every human who comes to know the Truth
of course, facts exist or do not independent of our ability to prove them. that is why we discover facts instead of invent them. however, just because some beliefs are facts doesn't mean all are. in fact most aren't.
from your perspective, belief in Jesus is fact but belief in Vishnu is false. both are beliefs that shape many lives.
Also, a belief that I am going to be successful may shape my life, but my belief that red heads love cake may be pretty irrelevant and I'm unlikely to base my life around it. beliefs come in all shapes, sizes, and validities.
either way. the question of god is unprovable in either direction. It's a matter of faith.
That's not true neighbor, all people are unGodly until they surrender their hearts to God. And some of these people do this by getting on both their knees and praying :)
"..beliefs can be something you base your life around."
Beliefs ARE something you base your life around, neighbor. You're right to say beliefs are not supported by evidence. But a belief can be factual, even without evidence. Would you like to know how? :)
ungodly people hate getting on both knees to pray
forgive me for my non omniscience. I do not pretend to know everything, but you seem to think you do.
yes, beliefs can be something you base your life around. that doesn't make it fact. one can believe they are destined to be successful and base their life around it. that doesn't mean they will, although that is a good start. It's just a really really big important guess.
"It is my understanding that god is.."
Here we go again. "It is my understanding" - when you write that, you are saying this is my personal take on the matter, but not the truth of the matter. Either you know about God or you don't. The God of the Bible, the One True God, doesn't demand worship. He deserves it.
?? did you read what you wrote? How can God making His presence known to you, make others believe in God? Explain that please. Thank you.
A belief is not a guess. A belief defines your life. If you're not sure about your beliefs then you can't say you have any. A belief is not a guess.
I agree with your statement except for the requirement to be worshipped. It is my understanding that god is supposed to not have human flaws like vanity.
if God does demand that inferior beings kneel before him, he is much more like us, imperfect at least morally.
Say you were a God, and you require your subjects to worship you and have faith in you. Would you make your presence known to them? No. Because then everyone would believe in you and follow you, making it pointless for them to have faith in you.
any answer that starts with "my belief is" is self proclaiming itself to not being a definitive answer but a "best guess".
in the presence of an unanswerable question, are we not allowed to use the tools at our disposal to form a logical conclusion? Or must we resign ourselves to ignorance and never bother trying? if that is your belief then we must all be agnostic.
Yes, "in the other thread." But that statement of mine wasn't directed to you. It was my argument for the topic of that thread. But I'm finding that you are in several threads. However, in this thread, based on what's available here - what I've expressed to you personally, you wouldn't know I'm a Christian. Just like a professional debate you use that information provided in that debate. Since you were in that other thread, that's how you know I'm a Christian. I just wasn't expecting you to use it as an "offense" towards me, since we barely know each other and just met. But you are right, yes I am a Christian. Could you please answer my question to you. How can you have a definite answer to a question (Is God real?) which you claim is un-answerable. Please validate your claim, thank you.
in the other thread you stated:
"I am a Christian. Islam is a false religion. We can't ban it."
if your a Christian, you must believe in god.
* [continued] >>definite
Your statement implies that I believe in God. However, I haven't mentioned my beliefs in this debate thread. You could only know that from reading that about me in a different article. You still haven't validated your claim that you can have a >>definite
much the same way you came to your determination.... then again you most likely just went along with whatever determination you happened to be born into.
"Impossible to determine, but my belief..."
..sir. If you can't "determine" it, how can you have a personal "determination" about it?
You are fake. You and all people who pretend that nobody dies. The people who stopped Chicago Homicide from being updated are fake. False god police are fakes who think that only they and rich people deserve to live on the Earth before dying and going to hell themselves.
impossible to determine, but my belief is that he doesnt. it's just so much more logical that the original existence would be simple matter and not some perfect consciousness.