The Existence of God

Then your agnostic?

 

Your a genius

 

haha a very intresting but flawed argument. please look at what im saying in previous posts.
just because all ravens are black are all that are black ravens? u don't have to be a genius or a priest to understand that question.
there is also no scientific evidence that dark matter exsists yet it apparantly covers 90% of the universe. so why do we believe what men in white lab coats tell us and not men in white robes? what sets them apart? what proof is there that dark matter exsists. you see the black in space and say that? i see the clouds and say god. there are many things in science and religion that are beyond comprehension. i personally believe in dark matter and god simply because there is fair reasoning for why BOTH of them MAY exsist.

nah im actually pretty open-minded if you dont insult my beliefs i wont insult yours i actually look for proof of no god theres none to satiate me yet.
hmmm im abit rusty on religious quotes educations taken over most of my mind but i think it was
little knowledge of science makes man a disbeliever but a profound knowledge in science makes a man a beliver in God. scientists today arent dispelling God himself but they are simply dispelling models of god.

funny how ive befriended most people who are against me usually with me taking there side on other posts. please dont say i ignore posts or whatever i simply deconstruct what your saying and YOU dislike it.

 

you should really really check your facts, dont go over the internet for translations go buy a english translation Quran.
"Read attentively, about the creation of earth and heavens; in 2:29, he’s saying: made earth then heavens. But in 79:30: made heavens then earth. Is’nt that contradiction?!”
According to you, in 2:29 of the noble Quran, Allah says that he made Earth first and THEN he made the Heavens. Is this really true? Lets see: -

“: He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything.” quran 2:29
now please dont pick and choose peices of the Quran to suit your " contradictions".
please note that Allah never states that he made Earth first and then he made and then he made heaven.
He merely says that he made all that is on earth and then he turned to heaven that was already created. If Allah had really created heaven AFTER he created the earth then why would he say “Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven”? After the creation of earth, how can he “Istawa (rise over) towards the heaven” when he hasn’t created it yet in the first place. The only possible explanation for this is that Heaven and Earth were already created.
FURTHERMORE:
Does this verse say Allah created the Earth? No! This verse talks only about the “things on earth” and not earth itself!

This verse doesn’t even refer to the creation of the earth. Does Allah say that he created earth in this verse? Read again. This verse only says that Allah created “all that is on earth”. Meaning, Earth was ALREADY CREATED by Allah and in this verse Allah is talking only about the THINGS PRESENT ON EARTH AND NOT EARTH ITSELF. So your allegation that the Quran says that God created Earth first and then Heaven is totally false and does not hold any ground because this verse doesn’t talk about Allah creating the Earth at all!
This verse speaks only about the division of heaven and not about its creation
This verse speaks only about the division of heaven and not about its creation

Similarly, where does this verse say that Allah created heavens? Just where? This verse only talks about Allah dividing the heaven THAT WAS ALREADY CREATED into SEVEN PARTS.there is a difference between “Division” and “creation”. You cannot “divide” a thing unless it is already “created”. So if Allah has to divide the heaven into seven parts then he must have already created it. That’s common sense. So your allegation that the Quran says that God created Earth first and then Heaven is totally false and does not hold any ground because this verse doesn’t talk about Allah creating the Heaven at all! Probably you may have better luck with other alleged contradictions that you have. Let’s see. Give them all to me. Don’t miss out even one of them because I swear by Allah, that I will refute each and every one of them with justice, fairness, good reason and logic.

of course in your defence tyro. you could come up with 100 contradictions and i could dispell them just as i could come up with 100 proofs which im sure you can disprove but yeah just defend my little corner
and coz im on so rarely on
heres something to chew on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIslvqd6hlc
feel free to take my msn sumwhere on this thread i think

 

Google evidence for dark matter. While it's obviously not proven, there is some evidence.

Are you kidding?
One group uses the scientific method to come up with conclusions based on available evidence, the other reads stuff from old books and tries to find evidence to support its already chosen conclusion.
You tell me what sets them apart.

you're brilliant

that doesn't mean you make shit up to fill in gaps.

what the hell don't you understand about the fact that you can't prove a negative?

 

God is a figment of our imagination he is false hope for people that do not have anything better to believe in.

 

@ dropkick google evidence of god while its not proven its there.
men in lab coats that u trust because they hav a dr as a title so u assume wteva they say must b bakd up. big bang, evolution and even sum microscopic threats are all theories, using religion as a yardstick God,the hereafter even sum prophecys are theories. deconstructed in the matter of dark matter we cannot YET prove it is there we can only theorise dats difrent 4rm men i robes how? no emperical proof on both sides.

 

@dropkik cont:
thanks 4 callin me brilliant
u cant say simply because we cant comprehend something its been filled with shit that which we cannot comprehend is further studied just like dark matter and superclusters. a negative cannot be proved? gravity does not exsist it cant b proved wrong so im correct?

 

Stasior, I'm not going to waste my time deciphering your straw-man filled, barely readable babble.
Come back when you can make a coherent point, and write a sentence.

 

How can't gravity be proven wrong. If there is no (insignificant) gravity, like on a space shuttle, there is clear evidence of gravity being absent.

 

schnell uv dun what i wanted prove a negative CAN be proved
dropkick i agree dats alot of waffle im on a mobile device so sorry il apply coherence on monday

 

Perhaps the fact that the "men in lab coats" work within natural boundaries and scientific LAW and theorem. I'd like to point out that theories are not "I have an idea, let's work with it!" They are ideas which are supported by huge amounts of fact and coherent evidence to the point where they are beyond a shadow of a doubt. Gravity, for example. You probably believe it exists, but it hasn't been proven to exist because you can't prove it, only its' effects. It's a theory.

As for the men in white robes, I'd like to see their factual basis, their research, their coherent evidence and so on. But apparently there isn't any, so why waste my breath asking?

I think I made this clear in my post, but Dropkick Murpheys hit the nail on the head.

It's a theory. To know what a theory is, see above.

No, I see a coherent theory on a screen or in a journal. To know what a theory is, see above.

So how is that any different from what you just asserted in terms of darkmatter and space?

Fair reasoning? Reasoning for why something COULD exist is useless in the real world without evidence to support that it MAY exist. There is no such evidence.

Prove to me that psychic pink ravens DON'T exist. Oh, sorry! You can't!

You can't disprove a negative, stop wasting your breath telling us that you can, because it will just make your entire argument irrational. Open minded? Pah! If you can't understand what I just said there's no way you can be.

And why would you say that? Many scientists believe in God, but a large amount don't. That quote is about as true as, as the example I've used previously, me being a Vulcan.

Taking sides? The point of a debate is to argue for YOURSELF or a set topic in a TEAM. If you "take sides to make friends" you are simply looking for backup which is a sign of weakness.

Unproven evidence, eh? If it exists, considering it's unproven, it might as well not.

Incorrect, there are many scientists who I believe are false with a passion. Unlike you, I actually do read scientific reports and journals for evidence before posting.

For the definition of theory, see above. However, I find it funny how you seem to think the laws don't exist. Again, to give you an example of something you're dismissing because it suits you, yet you'll say you'll believe in this: gravity. If you say you DON'T believe in gravity I'll be very surprised.

So why aren't you dismissing those as well? You've managed to do so for everything scientific without so much as looking at it.

I've noticed you continually use one thing as your main argument. Perhaps the reason you believe in God is because we can't prove that dark matter exists? I don't know about you, but that sounds quite foolish to me.

Also, if there's no empirical evidence, why do you believe in God? You seem to have been trying to provide evidence for all of your arguments this entire time, but now you say there is none? It'd really help your point if you stopped contradicting yourself.

I believe that was sarcasm, sir.

Oh, but gravity does exist. There is undeniable and irrefutable evidence that it does. Everything with mass has gravity. However, gravity has no physical form, so technically we cannot PROVE its existence. It is a theory. We KNOW it exists beyond conscionable doubt.

You're stabbing at air with that one. What I mean by that is, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

dear swan im on a mobile device so cant argue coherently however quote murphy "google evidence of dark matter theres no proof but its there"
quote me " google evidence of god theres no proof bt its there" nw quote u "if its unproven it may aswell not exsist" youve given me a plethora of ammunition against ur arguments whether im childish enuf to use that u decide on monday. i also use the fact of superclusters and various other spacial phenomena that shw the big bang theory 2 b breaking ur bloved laws

 

That's not the same thing. The difference between gravity and God is that the gravity theory excludes certain events from happening. If you hold a rock in your hand and drop it, and it remains in the same place, there is no gravity. If you pray and nothing happens (contradicting Mark 11:24), this should disprove God. But it doesn't, it will just be interpreted way out of line to explain why nothing happened.

 

find 'contradicting evidence' in islam please
contradictions in known science which are as derranged as some athiests would assume religion to be yet they follow this blindly.
i DO read scientific journals but not of free will i have to or risk fallin behind in class but alot of people dont so im not gonna argue quotes from the quran or anything in this post just gunna say just as you dont follow religion blindly dont follow science blindly either. religion doesnt equate so its nonsense to you i respect your beliefs; but many aspects of science do not equate either and usually contradicts itself.

Contradiction number 1: The HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPAL.
one of the best known issues with this theory the Holographic principle

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen in can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory
forgive me for not understanding how that SCIENTIFIC assumption is different from the quran stating.

Until he reached the rising of the sun and found it rising on a people to whom We had not given any shelter from it. (Surat al-Kahf, 90)


the only difference between the two is that the islamic notation is not contraticted generally or scientifically.
where your 'science' talks of a painted universe.
fair enough you can accept this if you want what the hell its your beliefs but to then call religion absurd? please dont.

let me lay off the big bang theory now its so easy to prove wrong and it may not even be wrong because no human has knowledge of it just as NO HUMAN CAN DISPROVE GOD AS NO HUMAN HAS KNOWLEDGE OF SEEING HIM.
contradiction on evolution
fossil record contradicts evolution is that there are many instances where fossils are out of order in the layers of rock. It is possible to explain the fossils being out of order by claiming that the layers were shifted or inverted but that explanation is highly questionable. In order to explain the fossils being out of order in Europe, geologists have suggested that a mass of rock thick enough to contain the entire Matterhorn somehow moved onto Europe from northern Africa. The movement of such a large mass of rock would certainly cause a lot of rubble but there is no sign of anything like that at the boundary between the rock layers. They fit tightly together.

mmmmm....
wow science has no flaws now? science is so perfect in comparrison to religion? Religion which none of you have seemed to be able to provide tangible flaws for without me dispelling them?
i bring in the flaws of your theorys which break your esteemed 'laws' just as you state religion does. You can attempt to prove me wrong and logically you will be correct. you will then show me flaws in my religion breaking the same 'laws' as your glorious science and is somehow less reliable but i will simply dispell those and win logically.
the truth is not any one of us will know if there is a God or not until we die.
now you decide you can:
stay on a forum which im rarely on and argue ur ass off to me i dont mind ill still hover over this answering odd trivial questions now and then.
or you can just stop... you know neither of us is going to win this argument both sides have too much 'logical' backing.
and someone mentioned earlier about me talking about empirical proof? please dont be stupid i was simply stating if you dont believe religion with no emperical proof why do you belive in science with no empirical proof? no empirical proof means NO physical evidence of it being correct just someone stating it is.
well yeah this is my kinda bye bye to this thread well at least the argument within the thread like i said im still answering trivial questions if the time arises between studies .

this post's reeeeealy badly structured but i cant b askkkkkd givin 100 posts to cause argument.and its just my bye well until i get into medicine nyway

 

Of course I don't believe blindly in any scientific theory. That's the whole point. I like how you bolded the word theory in your post. Also note how I said "gravity theory" in my previous post. Science doesn't really move beyond theories, and a theory is open to new evidence.

Religion however, is open to new evidence when it benefits the religion's standing in society.

Here's a Wikipedia definition because I can't write it better myself:

Key words: "observable phenomena", "quantifiable properties", "relationships between observations" and "conform to available empirical data".


Btw: No, I don't have anything better to do

 

yeah and i neva mind ur arguments sadly i got a load of study atm ididnt read ur post properly but i think i get the gist of it. kinda. maybe.
ooo wait yeah i do get it
"observable phenomena", "quantifiable properties", "relationships between observations" and "conform to available empirical data".
Religion however, is open to new evidence when it benefits the religion's standing in society.
forgive my ignorance one more trivial ignorance these are different how? religion doesnt close due to evidence being against it only a moronic person claiming to be pieous will tell u that. i understand that your talking about catholics but in my religion the holy books do contain what could be called "observable phenomena","quantifiable properties","relationships between observations" as for "conform to empirical data" its wikipedia i think neither science nor religion truly conform to empirical data dont ask me how i can argue with wikipedia your smarter than that im sure of it but ill check a book for a definition. i dont trust the intewebz >.

 

I disagree that science doesn't conform to empirical data. Empirical data is the basis of scientific theory. A theory that doesn't have a foundation in available empirical data is not a scientific theory, it's a philosophical theory.

 

In all honesty I do believe there is a god, its VERY easy to fall back on physical evidence showing that there isnt a god but thats what makes it a religion. Having a faith that there IS a god somewhere watching you. Some people even go to say the "man" in the sky, but how can you jump to conclusions about what a "god" even looks like? If there is a god, im pretty sure that it will not look/be something we can even comprehend to imagine. Many times those crazy moments where you see someone saved at the LAST second or snatched from deaths grip in a horrific accident is an act of god exerting his influence on reality but could those moments just have been PURE luck? Some of the "miracles" we see honestly looks like a higher power was present to create such an instance. Some claim to "feel" the presence of a god when they are in a higher state of emotion. Its really up to what you think is just dumb luck or the act of god.. I will finish saying its better to be safe than sorry...

 

With the infinite amounts of various beliefs, what makes it safe to follow one?

Expecting your personal belief to be the right one is like playing the lottery and expecting to win.