The Existence of God

Diego claimed that the image suddenly appeared. How do we know that he is telling the truth?

Has it been examined since 1979? Was the examiner reputable? Were his results verified by a large number of experts in the field?

Also, as I said above, it was not perfect, but was painted over to hide cracks.

 

My whole family is christian and i always have questioned them about god existence and none of them have any proof. Why would there be a hell in the first place? they say that the devil used to be an angel. Once again no proof.
Christianity has no PROOF of anything we just have the bible. The bible, why do people go by the bible. People make viruses to screw people over what makes anyone think that someone didnt just write the bible to screw people over in religious belief

 

Just another case where the people find the proof to match the hypothesis, and not the other way around.

 

ok so lets see about this, jesus died for us, but then came back to life. so how is that realy sacrificing himself if hes gona just respawn. so jesus left us with all the sin aparently. and if in fact he died and then came back to life, so that would meen hes a zombie, (from experience if you die and come back to life your a zombie no way around it) and that owuld meen your religion loves zombies weird people you are

 

Through your experience? No one else has died and came back to life, except Lazarus (who Jesus raised). Jesus also suffered and died for the sins we committed. He is not a zombie :noworry:

 

ok haha so you just said he came back to life but you also said he suffered and died for us? If he died then he should not have came back or his death never realy happend so he didnt die for our sins, he suffered for our sins but not realy died, in a way he died but he came back to life so it dont count. and if you come back from the dead you have to be a zombie no other way

 

I find it easier to debate that there is no god then when there is one.

If this is a debate section, then i assume believers of god can debate that there is no god?

Shredderbeam - If you are such a great debater, then i assume you can also debate that there is god?Devil's advocate?

I also find way more atheists in the modern world(our time period) then 10-1000 years ago.

Also, i don't see how religion can be proven with evidence, if it would be provable, then it wouldn't be a religion? Religion is all about belief, like a belief in miracles, etc.

Shredderbeam- If you say there is no god, then you can say there was no existence of Jesus perhaps? Or Jesus had nothing to do with god and was just some random person?

If you look closely, people had talent back in the time. It would seem as Mozart(music), Shakespeare(literature), and many others believed in god?

Right now with all the atheists in the world, we can't find much talent?

Last thing, people on this thread that call them selves apes? Go head and say you came from an ape, because i didn't. If you did, then be proud of it, but some people didn't( i hope you know what i mean).

Charles Darwin discovered evolution around 200 years ago, so how can you believe in it, when it was so long time ago if you don't believe thousands of years ago? I am sure scientists can prove that evolution is false, if religion is false?

 

I could, but I'd be using arguments I know to be flawed. I don't like ot do that.

Jesus existed, but much of what we know about his doings are secondhand testimonial accounts, which have questionable trustworthiness.

I would guess that most people in the Shakespearean era believed in God because it was absolutely taboo not to - although they also didn't have much of an intellectual alternative to design theory.

There is plenty of talent in the world today. What do you mean by that remark?

Whether we share ancestry with other apes is an empirical question, not a question of pride. It cannot be answered by referring to human dignity.

The difference between religion and science is that science is evidence-based, and mountains of evidence have been found in support of evolution. The same cannot be said for religion.

 

If Jesus existed, then define me who is Jesus and what did he do?
Did he actually die on the cross? If so, for what reason?

Evolution is only a theory. It is supported with evidence, but it is not 100% proven.How can you believe in something when it cannot be completely proven?

If there is evidence in something, does it mean we should believe in it?

Do you actually believe in evolution?

 

1) The bible is a book of made up stories.

Please tell us... how did you come to that conclusion.

2) Heaven is a fiction place blah blah blah

Also, please tell us... how did you come to that conclusion?

 

There's no god.. People need to believe in god, because they want to believe in a better place than they're living. About ~90% of people in the world are slaves. They don't know that, but they are. And for slaves to have some kind of wish to work, they need religion. And christian religion says that for hard work you will be rewarded in the afterlife.. Now what should that mean? For being a slave you will be reward in "afterlife".
I'm an Atheist for one reason - I don't want to believe in something that doesn't exist. And that is why I can think clearly.. When people are praying to god and asking for their help - I can work and just think how to stop/solve the disasters/problems.. God won't help us. Only us, people, can help our self. Though, the god is needed for a lot of people.. That can't be changed.. Only the strongest ones can really think clearly and not believe in god. That's just the way world is.. :/

 

I would guess that he was a Jewish revolutionary who tried to spread a new message but had it corrupted by the writers of the Gospels.

I don't know if he was actually crucified, but if he was, it was probably for upsetting the power balance of the area.

You might be thinking of the public definition of the word "theory", which usually means no more than an educated guess. The scientific definition is a bit different, as follows:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

Of course, there's still the odd-ball who doesn't accept it, but they turn up everywhere.

Maybe. It depends on the subject matter, the amount and quality of evidence involved, etc.

Yes, I actually do.

 

Well to be honest I dont

 

You actually don't seem to know who Jesus was and what did he do, etc.

You are guessing and you have no proof or evidence. ( I am not saying he was the son of god, etc, just pointing out that you have no idea of him that can be proven)

You are telling me that the evolution can be proven the same way as gravity.

But there is a difference: Gravity is a fact and evolution is a theory. If evolution is true, then why isn't it a fact?

The odd-ball of not accepting evolution? I think its the odd-ball of accepting it.

Atheists are really the ones that accept it. Not Jewish,Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhists accept it. I mean, the true believers don't.

If evolution was a fact, then it would be a fact by now. We gave evolution 200 years to be a fact, but apparently it isn't.

Evolution has a lot of evidence, but that doesn't mean that it is 100% true or proven. You said "maybe", which is not an answer. You can believe in a fact but you can't believe in theory, because theory could be wrong, even if it has a lot of evidence.

I will ask you again: Just because something has a lot of evidence, that means that you should believe in it? I don't think so, but for you its a "maybe", so i guess its a yes or no for you, which clearly doesn't make evolution a fact.

 

Why not?

I am very familiar with the Bible. I know who Jesus was and what he supposedly did. Whether you accept his divinity or not, he was a Jewish teacher who tried to spread revolutionary messages.

I clearly said "I would guess". That is not the viewpoint I am advancing as fact, that is my uninformed opinion.

Evolution can be thought of as both theory and fact. The theory part deals with scientific explanations of the mechanisms of evolution, testable predictions, and so on. The fact part deals with the fact of biological change over time.

When looking at the scientific community, you will find that there is a general consensus that evolution is real. The ones who doubt it are in the tiny minority.

The question of whether or not evolution occurred is an empirical, science-based matter. One's belief in God does not (or should not) affect one's ability to view evidence and draw conclusions.

When I said "maybe", I was responding to this question:

"If there is evidence in something, does it mean we should believe in it?"

Obviously, it depends on the amount of evidence, the quality of evidence, and the subject matter. If there is a very large amount of high quality evidence, and a logical conclusion is drawn, then yes, you should probably accept it unless you can demonstrate that the evidence, logic, or conclusion is flawed.

Evolution could be wrong, but it is very probable that it is not.

 

So you are telling me that evolution is real, because all the scientists agree that it is real? If evolution is real, then there is isn't any existence of god? Because many people assume that "god" created humans, but i guess in the atheist world, the evolution can explain it. I don't see how evolution can be also a fact, if evolution is a fact, then its a fact that god doesn't exist either?

How is anybody's belief in god should not effect how they draw the conclusion? If you believe there is god, then you believe that the god created humans. So any person that believes in god would come to conclusion that evolution theory is false.

It's probable that evolution is not wrong? I think that is more of your opinion, as you believe in evolution and also an atheist. It doesn't matter how much evidence is in it, the person that came up with the theory was just a human being, so its very probably that he could be wrong. Humans make errors and mistakes, so i wouldn't trust "Charles Darwin's" evidence.

 

No, I am telling you that the anti-evolutionists are by far in the majority, which is what I meant by my "odd-ball" remark.

God and evolution are compatible.

Not everybody who believes in God believes that God created humans in 6 days. Some take a more "God touched off the process of evolution", standpoint.

Whether or not you believe in God, if you are reasonably intelligent you can objectively view evidence and draw conclusions.

Your argument is now:

First premise: Theories are created by a humans.
Second premise: Humans are not perfect.
Conclusion: Therefore the theories of humans are not perfect.

This is true, there is certainly room for error, you have have to realize that a theory is hardly ever 100% correct, or absolutely wrong. A theory can be 95% correct. For example, much of medicine is based upon empirical science. Certainly, things go wrong sometimes, and patients don't react to certain drugs as predicted, but by and large it is an extremely useful and accurate branch of science.

 

Naw....

This user received a warning for spam.
​

 

Yah it is compatible, but: As far as i know, the real believers:Christians/Jews/Muslims, don't believe in evolution. They all believe that god created humans. Correct me if i am wrong. I am not talking about protestants, baptists, etc. I am talking about Orthodox/Catholic in Christianity, and Orthodox/Conservative in Judaism. I don't know much about Hindu/Buddhists, so there.

I agree weather you believe in god or not that you can draw evidence and conclusion. So a god believer, would have his own views, and would most likely draw a conclusion that evolution is false. You can bring medicine into this too, but the reality is, there is no way to 100% prove that evolution is correct. If it would be possible and evolution would be a fact, then with out a doubt there wouldn't be any problem with that.

Also, what is your opinion on everything written in the Bible itself?

 

Ok, but then you are taking what a book says over mountains of evidence. How do you know that the book is valid and the evidence invalid?

There is no need to prove evolution 100% - the amount of evidence that we have brings us close enough. If you're familiar with most legal systems, the prosecution only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, not prove beyond all conceivable doubts.

It's an interesting read.