Prove it.

that's an interesting view on it. i personally don't think that religion is maintained for a cynical reason like that but your view is pretty plausible as well.

 

God is known to be infinite. He doesn't need to be made. ​

​

 

Well, during the Dark Ages, Christianity was a very powerful religion. Many lands where conqured in the name of God and Christ. It's changed for the most part. The pope no longer wears a breastplate and his sword has been replaced with a staff, but it is still firmly rooted in it's history. Islam is that exact same thing today. Several nations in northern Africa were "conqured" by Muslims. Not in the traditional sense, where they fought for that land (although it's true for Egypt), but Muslims moved into Africa and spread their religion. However, they did conquer land in the Middle East. Like the Ottoman Empire. They're not yet at the point where they are a mostly "peaceful" religion. It may take much longer for that point to reach.

 

That, my friend, is unknown... In my church, our supervisor used to response like this: "God is probably always been there."
I know, weak answer.
But he created the BIG BANG!!!!! .

 

Do they teach you that in church? Why does the 'big bang' even have to exist?
Why would it even be necessary to do that?​

​

​

 

No, but it is a logical conclusion. <_<

 

There's really no point to this topic. You can't disprove the existence of God, and you can't disprove it either. You can argue either way without reaching a logical conclusion.

So yea, what's the point?

 

If you don't have anything productive to say then don't post. That is not the question asked in this thread and adds in no way to the discussion.

I forgot to mention in the other post that the other reason people believe in something that is highly unlikely to exist and is not proveable is as a mental and emotional crutch. Having the thought that someone else is in control so they don't have to worry about their actions.

 

I have do disagree there since my religion believes in free agency - givin' any human the choice of their actions n' they'll be held accountable for their decision.

Not sayin' all religions believe that but at least mine does.

 

I agree with you about your first comment.This zone is for intelligent answers,not the kind of stuff you'd find in the spamzone.

I disagree with the last comment because i think that the people that believe in god actually cut back on doing wrong because they believe in the bible,god and the punishment of sinners.
Some people need to believe in god as a way of feeling secure and without it they wouldn't be able to feel safe in their surroundings.

 

I never said that it makes people do wrong, unless they are told that their god wants them to do it then all bets are off (Crusades and suicide bombings).

@Kitty - I meant mainstream theistic religions with the whole "grand divine plan" concept. Where your life is set and everything happens for a reason ultimately decided by a supernatural being.

I personally think that people should be strong enough to survive without religion. I have plenty of problems in my life, everyone does. But I don't feel the need to talk to myself at night and go to a church/mosque/synagogue in order to feel secure and happy. I believe that I am capable of handling my life in right way and the only help I will ask for is that of real things; family, friends and professional help. Not talking to the sky.

 

Oh and the cookie post was very intelligent. >.>

This is pointless and besides, I believe Darkrequiem's method was highly effective.

Prove that he doesn't exist

Question against question, to show that the converstation is pointless.

The first post here said

Proof God exists

Proof he doesn't


I think that should have been the last statement right there, no more need for pretentious attempts.

As for emotional crutches, it's very easy to blame the sky for our own insecurities, in fact If I prayed or would hope for care bears to be my saviours that would make them my scapegoat, it's really easy to say "God is this God is that" to make an intelligent argument and yet you don't say that this could also be said about drugs, alchohol, sex, among other things, and in their case they are worse because they are things on our reach...and we can effectuate them whenever.

 

You are obviously missing the whole point of this thread. This is a DISCUSSION not a DEBATE. Read which section it is in before you comment.

If it were a debate, opposing questions would be valid. However, this is a discussion meaning the only thing to be talked about is the original question.

 

I know that, but even if we ended up endlessly discussing , it would on to no ends and I think it was disscused fervently enough.

Besides, If I also made a thread saying

"Prove he doesn't exist" People would post immense stuff on how this and that but would not go into solid ground, same is the case with this.

 

It does not mean that you can pretentiously say "Oh, prove he doesn't" and call the discussion over. It was mentioned and discarded. It did not need to be brought up over and over again. It certainly did not need to be defended.

 

Certainly not. But that's barely any reason for you to say it was an invalid response; as even if this is Disscusion he was entitled to say whatever he pleased, and that is also not to say that his post was completely useless and spam, which you compared it to.

You know, as much as would love to continue discussing we might want to stop talking about this as it is off-topic.

If you wish to continue, just PM, but I will not PM as I feel really no need.

 

It was one sentence long and had been mentioned several times previously. I believe that would be defined as spam, at least for the length of it.

Shall we get back on topic? Just because it is not improvable does not make it true. It is highly (virtually statistically impossible) that a god exists from the evidence presented in holy texts as well as from scientific evidence (i.e. real, factual evidence which has been physically gathered and documented).

To make it short and simple, the concept of a god is considerably closer to being untrue than true.

 

But, we cannot sway people to believe otherwise,unless there is one definite proof, In fact, If it was the other way around and science was the study of God and the proof leaned toward God, would common sense outweight it?(on the majority of people , I mean.)

And by far there is no solid evidence that THERE IS NO GOD as not any solid evidence either that THERE IS A GOD

So we cannot say either as definite proof, as for the emotional comfort, We use many things as emotional comfort and Other things are far more destructive, like the things palpable, that we can actually do, of course I cannot excuse extremists and people who use god as an excuse, which is seriously wrong.

 

That is just an argument of semantics. Science is a word (Originally from the latin scientia meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") just as religion is a word. Society has assigned them meaning and that meaning could quite easily have been reversed, with no effect on this discussion whatsoever.

Many of the so-called "miracles" in the bible have been proved physically impossible (i.e. by the laws of physics, meaning the laws of the universe) as well as prophecies not coming true (any that are being so vague that interpretation is loose to say the very least) and general day to day happenings not matching up with the criteria of an omnipresent, omni-benevolent all powerful supernatural being. I'd say that qualifies as pretty good evidence.

I was talking about emotional comfort as the reason for people ignoring the sheer improbability of a god. They let themselves be blinded in return for false hope and a false sense of security.

Also, it was technically a spam post but I will leave it there. I just didn't want people to be left with the impression that it is alright to spam in this section, it happens enough as it is.

 

Because evidence proves something, while arguments support something. Therefore, you mixed them up.

We don't know yet. Which I already mentioned by the way. But thanks for contributing to the point anyway.

Why should he be? How can a being of such complexity have existed in the very beginning? Scientists have given plausible theories for the increase in complexity, from quarks over atoms to enormous molecules.
However, there have been no arguments whatsoever, let alone valid reasons, for a decrease in complexity. Yeah, I know; God wanted to create us in his won image, right?

1) Who says that the concept of God isn't a metaphor itself?
2) Thanks to terrestrian fossils among other indicators science has given us a pretty good idea of how the world looked like even when it was still called Pangaea.

Good point. However, there is no scientific indicator of a flood of such proportions that isn't refuted already.

If I thought that I wouldn't be calling him a wizard in the first place, now would I?

No, because of mathematics and physics. No matter how powerful God is or what his reason could have been, there is no creating something from nothing. That includes water for a flood.