Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
God is beyond any SIMPLE logic a person may have or offer.

But, it was funny to see you guys act like you have figured out the nature of God in a few sentences.


Its funny to see you make assumptions about how "us guys" reach our conclusions in just a few sentences.

Ad hominem anyone?




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
That is a false assumption that you are making. I have not stated that one should cease to study. Once one knows the Truth exists and did regardless of aknowledgment, then comes the fun part which would be finding the truths within the Truth. But to argue the Truth when it is not something that can be argued is ignorant and shows that you do not actually know the Truth.



thats exactly what you're suggesting. Once someone believes something to be the be-all end all (such as god) they should cease their line of inquiry, and move on to questions such as "where did he live" and the likes... Thus, you have stopped trying to learn what the universe can teach us... and are instead assuming your initial assertion is correct...

If you were truly about continuing the search, you would have to entertain the possibility that god doesn't exist, or that your beliefs are wrong.

After all, you're hedging your bets on an improbability..



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
As I said, I see people who live like this all the time.
They always take the easiest answer and then they cling to it until they are proven wrong.


Like the ever popular "God did it"?


Originally posted by badmedia
And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times


You mean like Christians who trumpet the "you can't disprove God, nana nana boo boo!"?


Originally posted by badmedia
and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again


You mean like when Christians move the goal post back a bit further?
God of the gaps?
The 10th dimension?
Outside of the 10th dimension?
The 14th dimension to the power of 58 times pi?



Originally posted by badmedia
and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it


Yep, sounds very familiar
...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Gregor100
 


Are you that clueless?

That jibberish is proof to you?

I am curious why you need to spend this much time and energy to dispell something you do not believe in?

I don't believe in Santa, I won't spend time disputing his existence.


THAT was classic.

Nothing to add.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If ya don't mind me barging in...

I'm of the inclination that God cannot be proved logically, philosophically, scientifically, mathematically, categorically, or any kind of ally you can think of.

The people I know who believe in God, no matter the religion, ALL, from personal experience through conversations with them, do so because they believe they have had a 'personal experience.'

Debate can ensue all day long, all year long, forever and ever amen. But, from what I've read so far in this forum, the Christians who are attempting to defend their belief aren't doing a very good job at debating the actual issues brought up. Take it for what it's worth, just my 749,136 Zimbabwean dollars worth (2 cents
)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Preferable, not right. As I said, I see people who live like this all the time. They always take the easiest answer and then they cling to it until they are proven wrong.


If their answer is proven incorrect, than they need to go back, and incorporate the new data they have been provided into the existing data set that they have... thus finding a new truth by being shown to be wrong... This is actually very exciting to me when it happens... as it usually results in an extremely deeper understanding of nature of whatever it is we're questioning. I can't help the people you see who wrongly use Occam's Razor...


And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times, and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again, and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it, and why? Because they chose the easiest answer, rather than looking for what is true. All you are doing is making the "safe bet".


This is the scientific method at work. Kudos to the people who annoy you by changing their beliefs based on new evidence... but, its most likely much closer than taking an idea that has unchanged for over 4000 years... and refusing to admit new evidence.

While you call it a "safe bet", the rest of us call it being rational.


You are looking into the creation for evidence of the creator. And this is silly. This is like looking inside your Windows OS and hoping to find Bill Gates.


While without supporting documentation and a complete data set, this would be indeed absurd.

Fortunately, we have other sources of knowledge than our Windows OS... and can irrevocably find bill gates... The bible has none... unless you want to count midieval forgeries made during the "relic rush"...

Bring me new verifiable data... and we'll add that to the data set and draw conclusions afterwards.


Sure, you can look there all you want, you can look out in creation for evidence all you want, but where you need to look is inside you.


Thats convenient. And I suppose if I look "inside me" and draw a different conclusion, I'm doing it wrong?

Don't you see how this is a false argument?


You surely won't be able to understand the father if you can't even understand your own true nature. Hint: John 14:20.


We know way more about our nature as humans than you seem to acknowledge.


You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking.


Ah, so this is the rationalization you have for ignoring any new data that might come your way?


Well if he is talking out loud to god, then he obviously doesn't know where to find god.


according to you. I guess you're the definitive source of information on all things god?


And what of Genetics? If I buy a Honda Civic, and it has a problem with it's airbag, then chances are cars just like it are also going to have problems with it's airbag. Similar to genetics.


Yes, if the problem is with a faulty part... but cars don't have genetics... although the prospect of watching my cars have sex with each other... I have to admit... is pretty intriguing.


But it is the owner of the car who determines if the car is dirty or clean, how fast it drives, how erractic it is, and how it behaves. The limits of the driver is determined by the car, just like in genetics. Go figure.


Right... and in this situation, the driver is akin to the "car's brain". If that brain evolved with a predisposition to go fast... the car will go fast. This has to be the weakest argument I've heard on genetic pre-disposition.


Biology is just nanotechnology and DNA is the code the little self reproducing nanobots follow.


No its not. Nanotech is manipulation of molecules and such... if we could create nanotech with the ability to self replicate, you religious people would go insane... as we would have created a new life form completely unseen before.


Soul is better known these days as consciousness. I would love to hear about how science has figured this out. Please, tell me how 1 chemical reaction to another chemical brings about the ability to observe and feel. What is the magical observitanium element? I'm very interested to know how an electrical signal and chemicals reaction to bring about an observer and consciousness.


nah, i've done consciousness with you before... you change definitions and refuse to acknowledge points I bring up when we talk about that...

But, than if another animal were exhibiting signs of consciousness, would that mean it has a soul?

and how would we be "special" if that were shown... cause believe it or not... some animals show a high likelyhood that they are sentient.


The only thing that can come from nothing is thought.


Have to break this up... response was too long lol be ready for part 2



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
hi there
Simple proof "for"God>
Our very presence is the one...and when we try to formulate such questions...
And when is seemingly empty , hostile to live , going towards the lovest energetic and organisational states universe peoples try to fight for good, to create loving families,to learn ,progress, survive . Trying to find the truth...and deny ignorance...whats more?!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Cant resist adding my two cents on this one....

I have seen far more people who have set out to prove God does not exist become Christians, than I have seen become atheists.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
reply to post by dbates
 


dbates... a slightly off topic but question to your post..

I've just watched the videos on here that explain in idiot terms the concept of the 10 dimentions, It's a lot to get your head around but my way of understanding it was:

we cannot see the whole of our 3D universe/timeline, but we can look at the whole of a 2D universe, like looking down on it from above...

So you can only see a whole universe from outside that one, a 4D will see all of ours etc etc.... untill you bring in the concept of God .... to see everything he would (by my thinking) need to be outside the 10th dimension, but the 10th dimension encompasses all of all there is so where then is God??????

My brains hurting now, lol, I hope you understand my post....



Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. KJV

Hope this helps in locating God. My apologies if this makes your headache worse. I guess now we need to define "eternity"?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Like the ever popular "God did it"?


Because some people do not understand does not mean there is not understanding.




Originally posted by badmedia
And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times


You mean like Christians who trumpet the "you can't disprove God, nana nana boo boo!"?


Yes I do. You are being a politician now. Point out what a democrat does, and the democrat points at the republican and say's he does it too! Well both are wrong.




Originally posted by badmedia
and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again


You mean like when Christians move the goal post back a bit further?
God of the gaps?
The 10th dimension?
Outside of the 10th dimension?
The 14th dimension to the power of 58 times pi?


Again with the political spin answer. Pointing out errors in others does not excuse your own errors. The 10th dimension is actually science, and is not based on religion.






Originally posted by badmedia
and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it


Yep, sounds very familiar
...


Wow, I don't think I've ever had someone take what I said out of context as bad as this. The punctuation is literally in the middle.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Why does it matter whether God exists in the 10th, 11th, or 1 billionth dimension?

I was under the impression this thread was about the paradoxes that occur in the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, Christian God...not whether God parties in the 10th dimension or sleeps somewhere outside of the Multiverse.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Why would somoene that enormous bother with us?

And listen to the universal equivalant of microbes?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregor100
www.youtube.com...

If you cant be bothered going to youtube the video says this:

"The god of the bible is claimed to be omnipotent and omniscient.

If you can change the future you are not omniscient.

If you cannot you are not omnipotent.

Myth busted"

Pretty hard evidence right there....

Edit - Well spotted out i mis-quoted... wooops..

[edit on 19/2/09 by Gregor100]


No one can change the future, it hasn't happened yet. There is no paradox because you can't do it. Besides, "I am" is pretty self explanatory.

Say it with me, "I am". If you realize that God is living and if you revere the spirit who is in us all, who is humble that you not even see him and take seriously who's presence your very being is IN, everyone, then you will see who will always be God who "does not change".

Why else do you think we are to love one another as ourselves? How do you think your body revives itself when it is sick? It does so in the same manner as reaching out to one who is in need or without hope and lifting them up to seeing better things.

Our true treasure is inside one another; the deposit boxes of talents and gifts and of light, the light that sees the day and associates in it and gives sight to those in the darkness, not with religion but with friendship and love and hearing each-other.

The straw that broke the camels back, was not one, but a bail after a bail.

He's everywhere you want to be. Realize, you never needed a book, you are the book. This is your chapter. Pass the book on because when you end it...it's over, unless you pass it on....kinda like a chain letter or better yet, "The arm of the lord".

The talking heads said it best really....."We're on a road to nowhere"

Peace

[edit on 19-2-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I would like to say first off that this website is wildly entertaining to say the least. The "Christian" faith is divided into different sects and with that each sect may have different interpretations as its counterparts. That being said it doesnt make much sense arguing about who is right and who is wrong, what makes sense is that which brings them together their belief in One God. Myself being a catholic have spent many hours taken a closer look at my out-dated religion. I know it has its flaws but what doesnt. I try to ignore church doctrine and focus on what Jesus' message was and not what the church or certain scriptures say. Jesus taught us to do unto others as you would do to yourself. The bible says things like woman are property, homo-sexuals are deviates, masturbation is a sin, and so is eating bacon? Come on its time to give our heads a shake. We choose to believe or we do not, that is what makes things real to the individual. I've been raising my children as catholics too, but as I said before Im a modernist and follow Jesus words and not the church or bible. I dont believe a creator would punish you for your sexual orientation, or you had a b.l.t., right. Its silly. I would like to see more people trying to debunk aliens, u.f.o's, and n.w.o's than trying to debunk religions. Lets stay focused on what this site is about. So with that being said who thinks Obama is an extra-terrestrial??????????????



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
If their answer is proven incorrect, than they need to go back, and incorporate the new data they have been provided into the existing data set that they have... thus finding a new truth by being shown to be wrong... This is actually very exciting to me when it happens... as it usually results in an extremely deeper understanding of nature of whatever it is we're questioning. I can't help the people you see who wrongly use Occam's Razor...


Sure, to fix your mistakes is the way to go, but if everyone lived by this rule then advancements wouldn't happen. It is the "crazy" people who dare go outside the box who discover new things.




This is the scientific method at work. Kudos to the people who annoy you by changing their beliefs based on new evidence... but, its most likely much closer than taking an idea that has unchanged for over 4000 years... and refusing to admit new evidence.


Again, it's not a matter of them changing their mind. It's the way they treat what they thought they knew as fact before, when it wasn't actually true, and the effects of that. And here you once again go back to looking for the worse argument to go back to. An unchanged idea for 4000 years? Please, you can only argue against the literal version because it is the only thing you can see in it. My understandings go well beyond the bible, and I do not see things in the same way as most people.



While you call it a "safe bet", the rest of us call it being rational.


Sorry, but there is nothing rational about living your life based on what other people can prove to you.




While without supporting documentation and a complete data set, this would be indeed absurd.

Fortunately, we have other sources of knowledge than our Windows OS... and can irrevocably find bill gates... The bible has none... unless you want to count midieval forgeries made during the "relic rush"...

Bring me new verifiable data... and we'll add that to the data set and draw conclusions afterwards.


I'll bring you nothing. I speak for those with ears and understanding. Go find out for yourself. That is the point. Any fool can know, the point is to understand.



Thats convenient. And I suppose if I look "inside me" and draw a different conclusion, I'm doing it wrong?

Don't you see how this is a false argument?


Well it's called a personal relationship and you will get your own way of understanding. While you may have a unique way of understanding and expressing things, basic concepts and understandings will be the same.

Don't you see how you just copped out of doing it?




We know way more about our nature as humans than you seem to acknowledge.


Sure, plenty about the flesh, near nothing about the consciousness.




Ah, so this is the rationalization you have for ignoring any new data that might come your way?


You assume what I say is based off data. It's not. I didn't get my beliefs from the bible. I do not even consider myself to be a Christian and I think the church is the church of Satan.



according to you. I guess you're the definitive source of information on all things god?


No, according to me, you wouldn't even need me to tell you such things if you actually took an honest look.




Yes, if the problem is with a faulty part... but cars don't have genetics... although the prospect of watching my cars have sex with each other... I have to admit... is pretty intriguing.


And now you are just looking for ways to avoid the point. Ever heard of a recall? You know why they have recalls? Because the problem exists in all of them. Quit insulting peoples intelligence with these kinds of cop outs.


Right... and in this situation, the driver is akin to the "car's brain". If that brain evolved with a predisposition to go fast... the car will go fast. This has to be the weakest argument I've heard on genetic pre-disposition.


The brain is just a tool and command center. Just like the drivers seat. Again you avoid the understanding involved and take things for the literal meaning. I have little time or patience for such low levels of thinking. And I always find it in both atheists and Christians. You are as blind as those you point fingers at.




Biology is just nanotechnology and DNA is the code the little self reproducing nanobots follow.


No its not. Nanotech is manipulation of molecules and such... if we could create nanotech with the ability to self replicate, you religious people would go insane... as we would have created a new life form completely unseen before.


First off, I'm not religious. And once again you stick to the literal. As well, I personally don't care what you do, so long as you don't force me to it. This world doesn't scare me.




nah, i've done consciousness with you before... you change definitions and refuse to acknowledge points I bring up when we talk about that...

But, than if another animal were exhibiting signs of consciousness, would that mean it has a soul?

and how would we be "special" if that were shown... cause believe it or not... some animals show a high likelyhood that they are sentient.


exhibiting signs of consciousness means it is possible to have a soul. If it does or not you can't actually tell. I can't even tell if you actually have a soul and are conscious. You'll like this - I think it's a "safe bet" that you do, but the only one I am certain it is in would be me. Again, you could never prove that I was conscious, or that you are conscious. For all I know you could be some AI bot and you really don't have a soul, and there is no chance you will ever understand what I say. And believe me when I say this world and society is designed in a way to make you act and be like that, subject to action and reaction.

I mean it is possible to create AI that mimics and appears to be conscious and have a soul. I came up with the logic behind all that. But I realized it wouldn't have a soul or consciousness, and the only way to give it that is either a literal act of god, or for me to put my consciousness into somehow.

I have no problem with animals having souls. I just don't know. I treat them as if they do, because I think it is again - the safe bet.

Do you know why they say there is no logic that can prove or understand god? Because there is no logic that can create or understand consciousness. Logic is great for understanding the universe and many other things, but there just isn't any logic that can create consciousness.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
You mean that which created the universe and is the only actual observer that is and always will be? It is impossible for such to not exist, if there is no observer then there is nobody there know it doesn't exist. If there is no afterlife, you'll never know 1 way or another. Because you will not be there to observe it. The very act of being there to observe and "know" if there is an afterlife requires and afterlife to view it. I always giggle when people say - we'll know when we are dead, because the only way to know is if there is an afterlife. If there was no consciousness and nothing to view creation, then it would not be known to exist. The very act of observing is separate from the creation itself.


Or, there's the possibility that the universe would be here anyway, and always has been here... and you're just putting the importance on observation because you seek to find a meaning on WHY the universe is here.

The universe is here. observer or not. Although we could apply the same logic to god... if god was always here... than who was here to observe him? Without observation there's no reason for him to exist right?


LOL thats funny, I mention that it doesn't take consciousness to observe, and you go off on Artificial Intelligence.


I never once said anything about AI... nice straw-man..

I'm sure you don't think mice are conscious beings... but they not only have the ability to observe, they have the ability to learn from those observations.


The father is pure consciousness. He is the sum of all consciousness past, present future and all of creation, that which is known and beyond. The father is the only observer in the end.


Says you? right? apologetics at its best. Invent gods to fit the new realms science shows you. what happened to the 10th dimensional god? is he gone now?

Pure consciousness has no physical being? than how did he walk with moses?


But you do not realize the difference between patterns running based on the logic given, and the actual ability to understand and observe. That which is not conscious is unable to learn new logic.


What does this have to do with the scientific method? are you just talking jibberish now?

In the middle ages there was the black plague... The people at the time didn't understand it, thus, they said god was punishing them...

now, we know what caused it, how it was transmitted, and have in fact narrowed down that the plague entered Europe from a port in Italy, aboard a ship that came from Asia...

If you don't incorperate the new knowledge into your data set... you end up with "god dun it"...

in 2000 years, Christianity in particular, has refused to add new data to their data set... in the situations where it was impossible to ignore the new data, they change the definitions of parts of their religion... or start claiming it was all symbolic and figurative.


Well I hope you don't bring up psychology, as it is only able to recognize behavior patterns, not consciousness itself.


We've been through this before. We can recognize the chemical interactions in the brain, and watch thought happening on a screen... science will eventually completely map the mind... and will be able to show you exactly what you're saying consciousness is...

They already have video game controls that you wear on your head... you interface with the game via pure thought... now that is reading consciousness fairly well I would think.

The fact that you decide to assign some sort of divine attribute to conciousness and the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of what it is (scientifically) does NOT mean that it is truely divine in nature... this is just using "god" to explain the unexplainable... and isn't a real answer.




But what you fail to understand is that consciousness is not part of the creation.


Has to be because you've discribed god as pure consciousness... and he said "let us create man in our own image". This was the rationality you used when explaining why god isn't "man shaped".

Nifty little contradiction you have going there.


If you see yourself as only flesh, as being only a creation and result of this universe, then you are blind to the truth. Only if you realize your true self(consciousness/soul) can you understand why I say what I do.


LOL classic! If I don't agree with you, something must be wrong with my thinking, and I'm somehow inferior to you...

This is actually a pretty common christian response... and you wonder why other religions despise christianity.


Where are these magical molecules that have consciousness in them? You see yourself as being flesh and see yourself as machine. And yes, your body is from the dust of the earth, it is from the creation and it is a machine. But you are the driver, and if you can't understand that, then you will never understand me.


I've said this before... you're the one saying you have all the answers... (especially with the whole consciousness thing) Not me... I say its foolish to make the leap... and will instead wait for science to run its course...

There's no shame in admitting that you don't understand something. For some reason, believers have to attribute misunderstanding to "god"


So we will not find agreement as long as you associate yourself as being flesh rather than soul/consciousness.


Oh we could agree, if science someday finds facts supporting your myths, I'll add that to my data set, and re-evaluate my positions.


But please tell me, to what are the electrical signals in your brain presenting this reality to?


Other chemicals and electrical impluses in your brain... interperited by receptors. You're starting to assign value to something because its a warm fuzzy...


How does an electrical signal become the image you see? If it goes from light to the eyes, converted into electrical signals which go to the back of the brain, to what is that image presented to?


Optical receptors in the area of the brain that controls vision


To what are feelings presented to? Isn't it beyond just a signal telling you something is happening? If all these things like free will and such are illusions, then to what are the illusions to?


Christ, we could go at this all day... but it doesn't change the fact that just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I swear, If science comes up with a way to create "consciousness in a jar", you'd find some other reason to explain your situation...


It's not man's flaw that we can't generate a random number that can be predicted.


really? You can prove randomness doesn't exist? I'm sure you're the chaos theory expert now?

[qutoe]It's just because the program has to follow a pattern and logic given to it. It has to take a number, apply equations and such to it to arrive at the random number. We can make them random enough that a person can't tell the difference, but because it is based on logic it can be predicted.


Than explain the electron... There are two things we can be sure of when it comes to elections... 1) Its specific location and 2) It's path and where it will be in the future...

Unfortunately, you can never know both at the same time... this has been something Quantum physics has been trying to tackle for a while. that appears to be pretty random to me... and the best thing... is its randomness in the universe... not man made.

Science doesn't know why yet, but it is against the laws of quantum to be able to accurately state both assertions about any given electron. BUT, just because science doesn't understand why, doesn't mean they don't recognize it as a fact.


The best they can do to get random numbers is to take in something which is unknown and then base the equations off that. We can get random enough to suit our purposes, but it's never truly random.


Ok, I'll concede that point... Randomness is precieved in nature... it might very well be that nothing is random, and its truly just a complex system that is governed by a set of rules in the universe...

I can concede this point, because it might very well be true... BUT if it is true, man will find the answer through science. This is what the "Theory of Everything" is going to achieve.

It may only seem random because we are looking at physics the wrong way.. (I have a few... unconventional views when it comes to physics... don't ask
). But, if it is the case that there is no randomness... than everything follows a specific set of rules in the universe... so specific in fact, that any "dabbling" by a supreme being would upset the balance, and cause a butterfly effect across the ripple of spacetime.

In effect, if there truely are no random numbers... god is powerless to act in our universe, or it will come unraveled.






[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Cant resist adding my two cents on this one....

I have seen far more people who have set out to prove God does not exist become Christians, than I have seen become atheists.



Thats because you cruise with people of similar beliefs most likely...

Any atheist who sets out to prove god doesn't exist is a moron... You can not disprove the existence of anything... this is a given...

now what we can do... as the OP has done... is prove that the description of the god in question cannot exist as presented...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Like I said before on a similar thread...I'd rather place my trust in God and after I die, find out he doesn't exist than to NOT believe and find out that he DOES exist when it's too late...oops!
Let us know how that works out for ya bud.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by nj2day
 


You always want to argue against the worse arguments you can find and then act as if that is the only description of god or anything as such. Things which are clearly misunderstood. When pressed with other points of view, it's "moving the goal posts".


Well... as they say - A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

There is more than one description of god? Well could you please tell me which one is true? ... because the others must be bunk!

It's not that 'things' are misunderstood. It's that religious folk keep reinterpreting the so called 'facts' when they are shown to be untrue, which is in essence, moving the goal posts. There's a scientific term for it, "Cognitive Dissonance".

IRM



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Please excuse my bad Grammer English is not my first language.

Apply Occam's Razor.

Religion
Life Created by god
God created by ?

Science
Life created by big bang
Materials and space needed for the big bang created by ?

In theory neither should have existed. Nothing should exist.
Matter cannot be destroyed or created only changed.

No matter what you believe in you get to a point were anything you believe in cannot be explained. Occam's Razor would rule in favor of a creator. It is alot easier at a certain point to say there is a creator who built everything then to believe that matter and space suddenly appeared without influence of some sort and then collapsed in on itself and then expanded causing a chain reaction that eventually led to the formation of life. We believe we have evidence that the big bang happened but we have no proof were the matter came from to create such an event.

People's views on creation and god develop and change over time based on life experiences. No one whether it's christian atheist or any other religion or lack of will tell me what to believe. If someone wants to tell me about their religion I have two choices, Either listen and or tell them I am not interested. To the OP I know you think highly of yourself but you need to take a step back and realize you are not as smart as you think you are. There are many unanswered questions. Just because your answer's are different from other's does not imply that they are dumb or that you are smart. I have seen many people claim that religion has started more wars then anything else. But I don't believe this I feel that the people who cannot mind their own buisness and let people believe in whatever they feel is the answer to life unanswered questions are to blame. Kind of like the statement "Guns don't kill people, People kill people."





reply to post by nj2day
 





top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join