What constitutes adequate proof?

[XequR]

What makes you believe in God, if you do believe.

Personally, I don't believe in "A" god, but I do believe something had to have created everything.

Evolution - The theory that everything evolved from something.

If this is true, then where did that first type of creature come from to evolve in to another type of creature.

God - The theory of a person who created everything in 7 days.

If this is true, then how was God created?

I am just curious as to why you believe, or do not believe in God.

 

[Influenza]

I've wondered these things myself, and all I can come up with is that we believe in things as a hope/feeling that we get.
We hope in things usually out of fear. I believe that most religions are formed out of fear. If you really think about it, the way Christians pretty much promote their campaign is that if you do not believe in God/Jesus, you will go to hell after you die, where you will then perish forever.
Beliefs are formed when people are hoping for something greater/something to look up to.

*not fact, just on my opinion.

 

[XequR]

I quite frankly do not believe in Heaven or Hell, but do believe in a greater being or spirit in which must have created everything.

My opinion on death is that when you die, your body is in the ground, and you are brought back in to the life cycle to live another life in another body.

 

[Arya]

*sigh*.. Okay.

A belief in God does not mean a belief in a being who created everything in 7 days. As well, the lack of a belief in God does not necessarily imply a belief in evolution. Just thought you should know.

In any case, I, personally, have reached a conclusion that ultimately, any belief I could fathom would always reach an illogical point. That point is, ofcourse, "what came before it?"

So, thinking about it, I've given myself lead to venture into the concept of, "before time", or, "before existence". Of course, I didn't get far, but I got far enough to know that before existence didn't exist. Many people say that, "it was nothing", but, it couldn't have been 'nothing', because nothing doesn't exist, either.

"It was", implying the existence of. "Nothing", or, the lack of. So, in a way, I got myself to the checkpoint of, "There was no before."

Basically, what I'm saying is, I believe that there was no need for something to be created, because the empty shell that we call space was already here.

I wish I could explain it the same way I think of it, but I can't. I hope you understand.

I've found that explanation to always overcome the belief in a God, in a sense of logic. Once I did that, I actually saw a lot of the illogical factors of believing in a God; something I didn't see when I was a believer.

 

[Chriscross23]

I don't believe in god because why should you? What has he actually done for you? everything ive done is because of me not a god

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

God - The theory of a person who created everything in 7 days.

Immediately and completely put me off the debate.

/sigh

 

[Intelligent]

I quite frankly do not believe in Heaven or Hell, but do believe in a greater being or spirit in which must have created everything.

My opinion on death is that when you die, your body is in the ground, and you are brought back in to the life cycle to live another life in another body.

That makes you Hindu , I believe that aswell, heaven, no such thing, hell, wtf?...i mean but why not believe in another life cycle, i mean....not believing= boring 1000000000 billion years and no life, i personnaly think we shall all believe, because not believing means, your believing your gonna be nothing, forever after life.

 

[lacuna]

I really don't know if I believe in god.
Because he's never proofed anything to me, i just hope he is really there.

 

[Wookiewarrior]

I beileve in God,
Why?
Because He talks to me.
even if you dont beileve in him,
What You got a better thing to live for??
He loves You all Because Yur his children

 

[Envyous]

I Cant Really Answer This Its Just Like A felling & I Do Belive In God Because I Always Be Theres A Good & A Evil.

 

[XequR]

Immediately and completely put me off the debate.

/sigh

if you don't want to debate about it, don't post at all.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

if you don't want to debate about it, don't post at all.

Well, I thought to point out the parochial and ignorant nature of this "debate" would be worth any banter or infraction I may receive.

 

[Angelmax]

What makes you believe in God, if you do believe.

Personally, I don't believe in "A" god, but I do believe something had to have created everything.

Evolution - The theory that everything evolved from something.

If this is true, then where did that first type of creature come from to evolve in to another type of creature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

God - The theory of a person who created everything in 7 days.

If this is true, then how was God created?

Not all people believe their god created the earth in seven days, some people manage to reconcile scientific fact and superstition by compartmentalising their beliefs.

That makes you Hindu , I believe that aswell, heaven, no such thing, hell, wtf?...i mean but why not believe in another life cycle, i mean....not believing= boring 1000000000 billion years and no life, i personnaly think we shall all believe, because not believing means, your believing your gonna be nothing, forever after life.

How does that make him a Hindu?

 

[XequR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis



Not all people believe their god created the earth in seven days, some people manage to reconcile scientific fact and superstition by compartmentalising their beliefs.







How does that make him a Hindu?

It's obvious I'm not going to read that whole article, so enlighten me on what it's about.

 

[Arya]

That makes you Hindu , I believe that aswell, heaven, no such thing, hell, wtf?...i mean but why not believe in another life cycle, i mean....not believing= boring 1000000000 billion years and no life, i personnaly think we shall all believe, because not believing means, your believing your gonna be nothing, forever after life.

Believing or not, it's still going to be the same result.

For instance, if I believe, and it's not true, I still sit there, forever, with no life.

If I don't believe, and it's not true, I still sit there, forever, with no life.

It's obvious I'm not going to read that whole article, so enlighten me on what it's about.

If you're going to make a thread, at least make a small effort to debate in it.

Aswell, you don't have to read the entire article to gain an idea of what it's about. The first sentence is good enough. However, since 'it's obvious' that you won't even try to read that, "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or biopoesis, is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter."

...Enlightened?

 

[Angelmax]

It's obvious I'm not going to read that whole article, so enlighten me on what it's about.

Don't start a thread if you're not going to contribute. If you're not going to read what's posted, great. No need to fucking tell us about it.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

 

[Yeah I O W N]

politics makes people believe or not, its ridiculous.

 

In any case, I, personally, have reached a conclusion that ultimately, any belief I could fathom would always reach an illogical point. That point is, ofcourse, "what came before it?"

So, thinking about it, I've given myself lead to venture into the concept of, "before time", or, "before existence". Of course, I didn't get far, but I got far enough to know that before existence didn't exist. Many people say that, "it was nothing", but, it couldn't have been 'nothing', because nothing doesn't exist, either.

Ignoring the rest of the idiocy already saturating this thread, I'll address this line of reasoning with my own thoughts.

Time is only an abstraction of rates of change. That is: that which we measure to be time is simply the rate of spin of the earth with respect to the rate of completion of other cycles and processes. As such, time is a comparison or measurement, much like a distance.

The error you have made is a fallacy called Reification or concrete-ism. You have turned an abstract concept (time) into a concrete, thence forming this erroneous concept of "before time" or "the beginning of time" and "the end of time." These are no more real concepts than "before any distance", "the beginning of all distances", "the end of all distance".

If you throw away the abstraction of time and just deal in causality, then it is plain to see that there is simply no reason to expect that the universe has not always existed: If matter exists now, and if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then, logically, matter has always existed. Thus it follows that the matter in the universe (and therefore the universe as a whole) has always existed, and there is apparently nothing illogical about this.

 

[XequR]

Ignoring the rest of the idiocy already saturating this thread, I'll address this line of reasoning with my own thoughts.

Time is only an abstraction of rates of change. That is: that which we measure to be time is simply the rate of spin of the earth with respect to the rate of completion of other cycles and processes. As such, time is a comparison or measurement, much like a distance.

The error you have made is a fallacy called Reification or concrete-ism. You have turned an abstract concept (time) into a concrete, thence forming this erroneous concept of "before time" or "the beginning of time" and "the end of time." These are no more real concepts than "before any distance", "the beginning of all distances", "the end of all distance".

If you throw away the abstraction of time and just deal in causality, then it is plain to see that there is simply no reason to expect that the universe has not always existed: If matter exists now, and if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then, logically, matter has always existed. Thus it follows that the matter in the universe (and therefore the universe as a whole) has always existed, and there is apparently nothing illogical about this.

It's logical, but impossible. Nothing can just exist without being created in some shape or form. Yeah, the area of outer-space may be 500 trillion years old and counting, but how do we really know when it started or not. It's odd.

 

[XequR]

Don't start a thread if you're not going to contribute. If you're not going to read what's posted, great. No need to fucking tell us about it.

I felt the need to tell you so I can be ENLIGHTENED on what it's about.

This is my thread, I'll tell you about anything I would like.

Don't like? Get off.