The debate "The existence of God is a philosophical question therefore science cannot prove it or disprove it" was started by
April 16, 2016, 10:50 pm.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 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.
RyanWakefield posted 2 arguments, TZW posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
TripleBarrelBluff posted 12 arguments, dalton7532 posted 11 arguments, openparachute posted 1 argument, bigB posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
RyanWakefield, ReadyToBegin, OIA, itsme, swasti, supercat, TZW, hasantahsin, thunderstorm, sabrina, natemaster200, ImissReagan, QueenQuirks, Arnonsha, Razor, sagitario, codyray16, castor and 21 visitors agree.
blanco, TripleBarrelBluff, fadi, AhmadDanialBosan, openparachute, Alex, bigB, publicman0122, Iran1998, Pugsly, SueAnnMohr and 14 visitors disagree.
I think the theory of evolution is true but I believe a supreme being played a hand in it, I think Dalton makes a valid argument. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are both still a theory. The Webster dictionary defines it as A.) an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. B.) an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that us not know or proven to be true. Or the Business dictionary A.) A set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon. The word's origin (from the Greek thoros, a spectator), stresses the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality.
One can argue for the existence of God and against the existence of God, I guess it's how one perceives it. There are many scientists who believe in God and there are many scientists who don't. Many scientists belive the existence of God is scientifically proven (like the God particle). In essence we don't know....
I am done or else this thing will never end.
Just because I believe in Creation does not mean I do not understand evolution, the Big Bang, and big words. I understand these subjects very well. That is a fallaced argument. I am not trying to twist anything to fit my "dogmatic world". I was just using logical reasoning. I never said parts of the Big Bang support the Bible. I said data used to support the Big Bang can also support the Bible. It is amazing how you claim science uses the "dibs" system. The more you speak, the less valid your argument becomes.
I don't disagree with evolution. I simply disagree with humans eventually evolving from prokaryotes. All of the data that is used to support it can be explained by Creation. Not that it does not have any relevance, life cannot be formed naturally in water. Water breaks down the materials that would have created the very first organism. The only other proposed hypothesis is that life came on a meteor to Earth. There is no evidence nor explanation on how that is even possible as far as I know.
It is honestly very amusing how you resort to insults and name calling, and it is very impressive for such an intellectual mind such as yours.
"God has valid and logical scientific proof."
-You can believe and even keep thinking that, but there isnt. If there were sufficient scientific evidence to prove God, it would be a scientific theory.
Your "proof" is a an argument from ignorance and special pleading. Nobody knows what happend before the bang or even some details that caused it, stop pretending like you do.
"I disagree with the Big Bang and organisms evolving from a common ancestor, it does not mean I do not understand it."
-Thats exactly what it means.
Its interesting that without a doubt you believe a god not only created us, but really cares if we believe in its existence or not; but disagree with actual, tested, well substantiated facts.
So not only youre gullible, but also willfully ignorant.
the fact that you disagree with well established facts means you don't understand it. evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. we have examples of our shared ancestors. we know these things for certain.
you want to be able to twist scientific fact to fit into your own dogmatic world view. there is no part of the big bang theory that can be used to prove God. because there is nothing that proves God.
I never knew science had the "dibbs" system. That is a very idiotic statement you made about that. My point again, God has valid and logical scientific proof. Regardless if you can use it for unicorns or not. I am not making the case for Gay Unicorns! I do not know why you do not get this. I can copy and
paste an argument for something other than the Big Bang with the evidence for the Big Bang. Does that make the Big Bang relevant or not? The answer is no!
I do not disagree with the data that can be used to suppport us evolving from a common ancestor. I disagree with the way it is being interperted and used, and the theories being formed. Similar DNA across organisms and similar bone structures can be all explained by creation. I completely understand the subject. Most likely better than you. Just because I disagree with the Big Bang and organisms evolving from a common ancestor, it does not mean I do not understand it. Thank you.
"God has proof regardless if you like it or not"
On the contrary, the existence of any god has no proof.
The whole argument you made, i can copy and paste and use it for the existence of the unicorns. So we are still left with not knowing what happend before the bang.
The evidence in support for the big bang, supports only the big bang and nothing else. So no, you cant use the evidence that supports the big bang for anything else.
"Although, I do not think we all share a common ancestor. I think we were created."
So you researched the evidence that supports the fact we share a common ancestor? If you did, what exactly about the evidence you disagree with? If you didnt, then i suggest you do before you disagree with something you dont understand.
Also, I know what a scientific theory is. To be clear, I do not disagree with evolution. Evolution is the natural progression of organisms. Although, I do not think we all share a common ancestor. I think we were created.
That went over your head. The point I was trying to make is that God has proof regardless if you like it or not. Also, it is irrelevant if you can use some evidence to support Gay Unicorns. I am not trying to make the case for unicorns. If you want too, you can go right ahead. Also, the whole cow thing was just to show I can use evidence to support it and it in no way should disprove the Big Bang when compared upon. I was not trying to make an impenetrable argument of a cow who farted and expanded the universe.
"I can make the argument that evidence used for the Big Bang supports a cow named Larry who traveled back in time farted and expanded the universe,"
Except the evidence actually supports the big bang, so no you cant use the evidence for any cow. No evidence supports or even suggests that belief. But that belief is actually on the same level of evidence as God.
The big bang wouldn't be a scientific theory if it didnt have sufficient evidence to support it. Its not a matter of belief, you either understand it or you dont. Same goes for evolution.
Beleive what you want, but at least get the facts right.
Whether or not supports unicorns is irrelevant. I am not making the case for unicorns. I making the case for there being proof of God. If you want to make the case for gay unicorns, you can go ahead.
I can make the argument that evidence used for the Big Bang supports a cow named Larry who traveled back in time farted and expanded the universe, but does that in anyway disprove or make the Big Band irrelavant when compared too? No! I believe I already made this clear already.
No it isn't Psy, go to any religious place on earth and say that. What will happen? you will be executed.
Which is nothing but fallacious. if you swap god with unicorns it's the same argument.
Scroll all the way down. First post.
what was your arguement?
I made a completely valid argument, and I did not bypass anything. Someone has their toes tickled.
Nobody dodged argument because it's a bullshit argument. It's like arguing for the existence of dragons because " it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one". what total shit. It's just a line of sophistry that you're trying to use to bypass the burden of proof.
the argument topic was that God is not provable or disprovable. religion is all about shadows and doubt. if they could prove their claims it wouldn't be religion anymore.
People completely dodged my argument. My argument was pretty valid. It was based off facts and logic. It pretty much disproved the statement that science can prove God.
I love science and G-d wish the 2 could coexist though
I agree science cant prove or disprove the idea of god.
what OIA said is 100% true. Whether you do or do not believe in G-d.
I underatand some believe this is correct. But without evidence, it can never be an objective truth.
The statement is correct
yeah you used the bible to explain it.
"gave us love regardless if we believe in him or not, and let us live on the Earth. It says it in the bible."
I never tried to use the bible as evidence. I only tried to explain why God wants us to believe in him.
You used an argument that can be used for any belief anyone has before the big bang. Then tried to use an ancient book as evidence.
What did I just explain?
The character Yahweh in the fictional book called the bible, is a horrible representation of love. Its a bloodthirsty, homophobic, genocidal being.
Except theres no evidence for or against the existence of god. Humans developed the idea of many gods to explain ignorance and to control masses.
Great answer! Making a valid statement!
God wants us to love him because he created us, gave us love regardless if we believe in him or not, and let us live on the Earth. It says it in the bible.
Because that would mean my religion is bullshit.
science has originally based off of philosophy , trying to solve questions that are proposed , such as in the past: can particles he divisible to a certain point? we have proved it scientifically. just because God is a philosophical question doesn't mean we aren't able to use either logic or scientific reasoning to prove or disprove that.
Ok well whats your evidence that this god desires our worship and belief?
There are many reasons to believe in a God. If you want to discuss it, I would be more than happy too. When you said, " a god" never gave us any good reason to believe in it. That is simply not true. God gave us every reason too. It was humans to depart from God after creation. That is a trait humans still carry whether it be in "fiction" or reality. If you want to believe in God, that is your choice ultimately
Im not biased against god. theres just no logical reason to believe in one, especially one thats personal. God is a scientific assertion about reality but cannot be observed or tested. You cant just call something real and claim it contains none of the other properties that is considered real. This is what we call fiction.
Is it possible a god created us? sure. I dont find the possibility probable. But in any case if a god is responsible for our existence; its given us no good evidence or reason that it desires humans to believe and worship it.
Therefore, i live my life as there is no god or afterlife. I find it remarkable i get to experience this phenomenal and live as if this is the only life i have.
The whole purpose of my point was to show there is factual and logical proof to support God. However, whether or not you can use it to support magical unicorns does not make point relevant or not. I say the expanding universe proves my theory of a cow who traveled so fast backward in time farted and pushed everything outward and we are just seeing the effects of the cow who had alot of methane. Btw, his name was Larry. Does that in anyway disprove the Big Bang theory when someone compared it to my theory? The answer is no. My statement was completely logical and factual. It worries me how people dislike it because they are so biased against God.
Infinite regression is not feasible. Their cannot be motion unless something moves it, and according to the unmoved mover argument, something unmoved.
Youre just labeling whatever caused the big bang God. I just call it information unknown. Though it would be nice to know this information, my life isnt effected by it. Im content with the knowledge science has able to gather over the course of history.
I could beleive a bunch of magical gay unicorns created the big bang. And if you are not a good person, you will be horned by these unicorns in the a** for all eternity. This claim or idea has just as much evidence as any God claims in religious text. Now if i wanted other people to accept my belief, I will need some pretty convincing evidence to do so. Saying these unicorns are real because something had to put us in motion isnt going to get me anywhere with any rational person.
I dismiss religious deities in the same respect people dismiss gay magical unicorns.
why does it have to be God giving this "push"? why can't things have been in motion for an infinite amount of time?
The existence of magical gay unicorns is a philosophical question. Therefor your logic is irrelevant.
Hahaha, that's a good one
Science is nothing but the gathering of knowledge. It is supposed to be unbiased and based on proof or evidence. Both are very similar. To help further my argument, I will give the definition of proof. Proof is argument(s) to suppport a claim. Therefore, in order for proof to be valid, it must have facts supporting the argument/proof. One widely known fact is the First Law of Thermodynamics. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. We all know as of now, energy is essential for anything to be moved or created, such as the universe. Hence, the unmoved mover argument. This argument states that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another object, therefore, there must be an unmoved mover. Ok. since, we got that down now. What claim could that possibly be supporting? Their is a widely disputed claim that there is proof for a eternal, unmoved, creater of the universe known as God. Well, if proof is an argument to support a claim, and in order for it to be valid it must be based nothing but on facts/logic, we can conclude that their is valid proof for the existence of the claim of an unmoved, eternal, creator of the universe known as God. Wam and Bam Athiest!