Debate Mansion

   

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 6)

Post Reply New Post

Page 6 of 149

*Woh Ajnabee*

IF-Sizzlerz

*Woh Ajnabee*

Joined: 15 September 2007

Posts: 22609

Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by Aya.

Nahh . You just couldn't come up with something better .

Funny, was going to say the same thing about you.


Originally posted by Aya.

What proof do you have that there isn't a God ?
Proof to me science without using science books ! Confused ?

It's stupid to ask to prove a negative. You are the one making a claim, that God exists. So, it is up to you to provide proof of his existence. You wan to proof negative? Can you prove I am not God? I say I am, will offer no proof but I say that I am God? Can you prove I am not? Now, do you get why is it stupid to prove a negative? And if you believe that I am God, then it is worthless to continue this discussion.


Originally posted by Aya.

If you don't believe in God, just because you're not able to see the evidence, then why do you believe in what you believe, since that has no evidence either ?

I believe in science. Are you saying that Science has no evidence? Really?


Originally posted by Aya.

If you seriously want to believe that there is a God, then you NEED to have Faith do that, which you don't have ! Basically, It's like how you believe in your imaginations, because you trust it .

Again, things don't need my faith to exist. If I started believing you don't exist, you won't magically disappear. So, if God is real, there would be proof, but there isn't. And I don't believe Science by trust, but because it has proofs. And are you really calling science imagination?


Originally posted by Aya.

I'm not the one here who has made this topic . So, you're the confused one here .

Not a bit confused here. Just having some debate.


Originally posted by Aya.

Basically, for those who know God, no further proof is essential . & for those who do not yet know Him, no proof is enough .

Well faith is actually absence of evidence, because if there is proof, you are sure. So, you are believing without any evidence. And trust me, I believe in scientific way, and proof will be enough for me. Just give me a proof of God, any way to observe him.


Originally posted by Aya.

"Simple proof, if you see a car there must be a car manufacturer. So, you see all the creations on earth and you shall know for certain that there must be a creator ! Because the creations are so perfect, each one has each one uniqueness. Those creations could not just happened by random act of nothingness just like what atheists try to suggest.

Simple proof, if there is a God , then there must be a God manufacturer. Ummm... and who was that again? These are your own words. I asked many times and you don't reply. Don't dodge.

And no everything doesn't require creation. For example, there are mountains of such shapes and sizes. Do you think somebody went out and carved them? No, they have formed by erosion of rocks, which is a random act.


Originally posted by Aya.

When a mother gives birth to a precious newborn baby, she feels an overwhelming bond and love for the child like she has never known before. Where did this love come from? Is her love tangible? Can she physically see this thing called "love"? Well, no. She sees her baby whom she loves, but love itself she cannot see. Does the fact that her love is unseen diminish the fact that her love is real? Of course not. The same applies to trust in the Love of God, God is love, and yet we have never seen. We feel His love, we sense His presence, we see His miracles and we trust His Word." - John M.

Well, the love is due to oxytocin released after childbirth. But, leave that. You say we cannot see love, I agree. Love is an emotion, which can be felt not seen. But you can see the child can't you? The child, whom the mother loves, is very real. In the same way, I am not asking to see your faith. Faith is an emotion, which can't be seen but only felt. But the person for whom you have faith, God, he should be real and I ask for proof of his existence. Just as the source of love, the baby, can be seen not love itself, I want to observe the source of faith, God, and not faith itself. Understand the difference?

And no, I don't feel love, presence, or miracles of God. The world is cruel and full of evil. So, if God is so loving, why doesn't he destroy all evil. That's exactly what I asked in Epicurean Paradox. Read that part of the OP again and then answer. 


Instead of going around in circles and attacking each others arguments, why don't the two of you actually think about what the other person's saying? :)

@Freethinker:

Even science has limits and parameters. After science fails to find evidence or explanation of the origins of the universe, where do you turn to? If science is only based on experiments and hypotheses, is there a chance that it can be wrong? Is it not possible that faith and science can coexist not only in society but also within an individual? Nobody has seen God, nobody can prove the existence of God in a laboratory, but similarly, no scientist can prove that the universe was created randomly. Were you there when it happened? Did anyone see it? After certain parameters, even atheists start going into metaphysics - is that not a religion/faith in itself?

@Aya:

You see God in our creation - in our uniqueness, in love, in relationships, but if God's everywhere, then do you also see God in poverty, in misery, in death, in hatred? Is it wrong that if we believe in God, we sometimes question things that we don't understand instead of refuting them automatically? Can skepticism not make faith stronger at times?

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

seoulbeatsethereal..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 6)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

ethereal..

Senior Member

ethereal..

Joined: 11 February 2012

Posts: 429

Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:13pm | IP Logged
For me god is just an assurance. Whenever in a fix, i tend to draw inspiration, peace and support from 'something' present in the nature.
Through the beauty of flowers, the purity of sky, the mesmerising brightness of sun(does it sound poetic?...lol) and everything that has a soothing effect on my mind, i feel the presence of that 'something' and call it god.
Regarding creator an creations theory, i'm as confused as you are. I do not understand the theory of karma either, may be rebirth would be the justification, which is again without any proof.
And about number of souls, in my opinion(strictly my opinion!) when 100 people become 500, the extra 400 souls come from various insects and animals they had killed knowingly or unknowingly (lolz...an arrow in the dark...i know it's silly).
On a serious note, i guess the leaders of various communities wanted their people to follow a certain code of conduct and to abide by the moral principles and hence named the law as god to instill some fear in their hearts. This would have ensured smooth functioning of society and helped people in leading a meaningful life as better human beings.
But with the advent of time, people lost track of the basic concept of god which was an amalgamation of love, care, benevolence, brotherhood, honesty etc and created their own version of it.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Freethinker112

Summer3

IF-Stunnerz

Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007

Posts: 44122

Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:28pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by Rehanism

The words spirit/ghost/soul have a same meaning i.e. breath. In olden times people believed that the air that we inhale and exhale is an entity called Soul that resides in our heart and when we die it leaves our body and hence we stop breathing and our heart stops pumping.

So technically speaking, soul, spirit or ghost does exist. Want evidence? Place your hand under your nose for 3 secsWink

Well, breath is just air, a mixture of gases. It doesn't live inside us. And it's not living or conscious. People call soul as something that gives you life, is conscious and stays in our body till we die. While breath is always replenished, it doesn't stay with us. Does that mean our soul is changed every time we inhale and exhale? And soul/ghost are said to be alive and conscious even after death, while air has no life either inside our body or outside.

So, no I don't think breath fits the concept of soul. Because then we will need nearly a billion soul for each person. LOL
Yes Prana is the life force that sustains the physical body too.

Aya.

IF-Dazzler

Aya.

Joined: 18 May 2012

Posts: 2680

Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:57pm | IP Logged
Sorry, but If you can ask me to prove God, then I can ask you vice versa .
The same way you claim he doesn't exist, I can claim he does . Fair enough !

I don't believe in Him, because there is no evidence . I believe in Him, because there is evidence .
The evidence is enough for me and for billions as well . The majority of them believing in Him because of faith . That is all they need .

Let's make an assumption . Everything is created by "A" . Question: Who created A ? Answer: "B" created "A" . 

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z .

Now who created Z ? NO ONE ! A cannot create Z, because B created A, because at that time Z wasn't there when A was created by B . So, how is it possible for A to create Z when B created A ?

The american alphabet stops at Z . Get it now ? No one created God . God has always existed .

"You can keep asking this question until we exhaust the chain of creation. Ultimately, we will all have to agree one of 2 things: Either the "creator" is a product of random chance and accident, or some "thing" outside the realm of natural creation exists who is self-existing and doesn't need a creator."

"Furthermore, things like "created" and "born" and "died" are physical things which require time and space. If there is an existence which is self-existing, then that means time doesn't affect Him because He doesn't get old, or get born, or dies. If time doesn't affect Him then that means He is outside the realm of time and space. If He is outside the realm of time and space then He lived before everyone else and will live after everyone else."

"To understand this better, draw a straight line with blue ink on a piece of paper. Let this blue ink represent time. We know time exists so some "thing" has to initiate this line. So now you would draw a bracket in red ink at the begining of the line. As soon as we draw this bracket in red ink outside the line of time, we right away admit that this "thing" is BEFORE time starts. With time begins all other creation, and this "time" seperates the creation from the Ultimate Creator. Since this Ultimate Creator existed before the measurement of time began, for all factual and empirical purposes that makes Him, quite literally, "Eternal and Absolute."

If you believe that it just "happened" or it has always been there, I can say the same thing about God . & If you believe about the "big bang" then, what proof do you have where the big bang came from ? Who made the explosion or created the big bang ? The big bang is just another theory by scientists . Scientists don't have all the answers . They are confused themselves, so they just like to make up theories . I only believe in things that make sense . "A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist ." Scientists are humans & humans make mistakes !

You cannot create something from nothing . "I can't believe this world of clockwork exists without the clock maker ."

I can prove you're not God, because you have no control over your own destiny . You don't know when you're going to die . You don't know what will happen tomorrow . You don't anything . 

I've given you proof about how a ship cannot run without it's captain/crew !
So, how do you expect this world to run without it's Creator ? That is logic .

Ok fine, you didn't like the ship ! 

How do atoms "know" how to do gravity ? Things just can't move on their own . Doesn't this mean that something is actively working to make gravity work ? You can't leave a baby on its own to walk, or else it will fall, right ? Therefore, their parents are there to hold them . Take a very close look at the earth & all other planets . It's like a thread where one hangs their clothes . If that thread is loose the clothes are going to fall on the ground, right ? So, God is holding the earth & all other planets with His Power . If He lets go, then expect exactly what happened to the clothes . Just as much you own your home, God owns the world . You didn't like the ship one so, I'll give you this one, It's like how a pilot is in control of a plane, a plane cannot fly ALONE even if it had a "compass" . You need the captain/crew ! Yupp ! Again, that is LOGIC !

"If God is so loving, why doesn't He destroy all evil ?" Excuse me, but Life's a test . When you take an exam, you don't expect all the answers to be easy, do you ? Do you expect to get good grades without any hardowork ? NO ! You're being tested by your teacher . You have to go through hardship in life & after that, you get your reward . Don't expect everything to come to you just like that . You gotta get up & work hard for it . Yes, God created evil, but it's humans who commit the crimes ! I don't see God abusing kids, killing people, etc. It's us humans ! If there's good in the world, there has to be evil . Take a look at the periodic table, point out all the good & bad things in it . If there's positive, there has to be negative . If there's a sun, there has to be a moon . If there's black, there has to be white . If there's left, there has to be right ! Correct ? Creating evil is not evil . Commiting evil is evil . One has their own will;conscience . We are given the choices . The result/consequence is upto Him . He, however knows what decision we will take and knows the result of that decision . 
"If someone does not repair his roof when his house gets wet and damaged, he has got no right to say, "the creation of rain is not a benediction!" On the contrary, it becomes evil for him because of his mistake. For example, a judge convicts you of theft and puts you in prison, but you are not a thief. On the other hand, you committed murder that no one knows about. So, the destiny has acted justly and imprisoned you because of your murder. The judge, on the other hand, has acted unjustly by jailing you for the theft that you did not commit. So, the justice of destiny and God's creation, and the injustice of human can be seen together in one occasion. While human oppresses, the destiny performs justice. So, the destiny of God, in reality, is freed and exempt from evil."

This is a beautiful thought that I've come across: "There is an incredibly strong fort, it has no doors, there is no way to get in. In fact, there is not even a hole in it. From outside it glows like the moon and from inside it shimmers like gold. It is sealed from all sides, matter of fact it is air tight. Suddenly one of its doors breaks down, a living thing with eyes and ears, a beautiful looking animal appears yelling and wandering all over. So is not there a creator who made it possible for life to take place in this secured and closed fort? And is not this Creator better than humans? This Creator has no limit." This guy was referring to an egg, which is closed from all sides but God the (Creator) puts life in it and a chick pops out . Babies come through their mother, right ? She breathes air & feeds him food, but this chick is closed with no air to breathe, no food to eat & it comes to life ? Indeed ! I bear witness that there is God ! If you were to put me alive in a closet & lock me up, do you think I'd still be able to breathe in there ? I'd lose my breathe & die ! But this chick comes to life ! Now please, don't say it just "happened" or some kind of chemical did this or that, because no matter how hard you try, you'll NEVER figure it out ! Let alone science ! 

Oh, & another thing, when we are in trouble or when calamity befalls us, we turn to God ! Not scientists !

You say you don't want faith as evidence . Since you believe in science so much, then here is scientific proof . This is quite long, but take your time to read CAREFULLY with UNDERSTANDING & with an OPEN MIND !!

This was written by Mr.McKenzie:

In the past thirty five years, scientists have been stunned to discover that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. For many scientist, this points in a very compelling way toward the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Here are some of the data gathered by scientists, both Christians and non-Christians, that point toward complexity and orderedness at the beginning of the universe: Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100, life could never have developed. For comparison, there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. There are about fifty constants and quantities. For example, the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, the proportion of matter to antimatter. That must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible. For organic life to exist, the fundamental regularities and constants of physics must all have values that together fall into an extremely narrow range.

The probability of this perfect calibration happening by chance is so tiny as to be statistically negligible. Collins puts it well: "When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are fifteen constants...that have precise values. If any of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people." Some have said that it is as if there were a large number of dials that all had to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits, and they were. It seem extremely unlikely that this would happen by chance. Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Astronomers are discovering a whole new dimension of evidence that suggests this astounding world was created, in part, so we could have the adventure of exploring it. As astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards, who wrote the book "The Privileged Planet," elaborates. Total eclipse of the sun, which yield a treasure trove of scientific data, can only be viewed from one place in the solar system where there are intelligent beings to view them. Also, earth's location away from galaxy's center and in the flat plane of the disk provides a particularly privileged vantage point for observing both nearby and distant stars. Another example, earth provides an excellent position to detect the cosmic background radiation, which is critically important because it contains invaluable information about the properties of the universe when it was very young. Because our moon is the right size and distance to stabilize Earth's tilt, it helps preserve the deep snow deposits in our polar regions, from which scientist can determine the history of snowfall, temperatures, winds, and the amount of volcanic dust, methane, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The findings of scientists that our world appears to be designed for discovery have added a compelling new dimension to the evidence for a Creator. And, frankly, their analysis makes sense. The finely tuned universe can compel only one reasonable conclusion, a supernatural agent must be responsible for it.

Every time I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com or the words "I love you" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did the writing. Even if I can't see the couple who wrote "I love you," you don't assume that the words randomly appeared by chance of the the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that written communication. And what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. I'm not saying this because I'm a writer; scientist will tell you this. We use a twenty-six-letter chemical alphabet, whose letters combine in various sequences to form all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. For me, that's reason enough to believe this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes: In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more that fifty years of DNA research have provided the materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Flew: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article'

Source(s):

Nearly every scientist agrees that the universe had a beginning. The most widely accepted explanation is the Big Bang theory or some variation of it. The question is: What made the bang? If you hear a noise you look for the cause for a little bang, then doesn't it also make sense that there would be a cause for the big bang? Stephen Hawking states, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." The philosopher Kai Nielson says, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."

Maybe you've heard Christians denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory because they believe it contradicts the Bible's revelation that God created the world. But well-meaning, Bible-believeing Christians have different views on the issue. For example, William Lane Craig believes that the Big Bang is one of the most plausible arguments for God's existence. Adds astrophysicist C.J. Isham: "Perhaps the best argument... that the Big Bang supports theism [belief in God] is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists." Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted that, although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. You may have seen the bumper sticker that reads, "The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and Bang! It happened." It's a little simplistic, but maybe it's not so far off.

"In the beginning there was an explosion," explained Noble Prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg in his book The First Three Minutes, "which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing part from every other particle." The matter rushing apart, he said, consisted of elementary particles, neutrinos and the other subatomic particles that make up the world. Among those particles were photons, which make up light. "The universe," he said, "was filled with light." Interesting, that's what the Bible says too.

Obstacles to the formation of life on primitive earth would have been extremely challenging. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it. And that would only be one protein molecule, a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.

There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity, the laws, of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experiences, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories. Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David and Bertrand Russel, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, "Well the future has always been like the past," Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it by faith. There have been many scholars in that last decades who argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in a all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. I can always say, "We don't know why things are as they are." As a clue for God, however, it is helpful. I can surely say, "We don't know why nature is regular, it just is. That doesn't prove God." If I don't believe in God, not only is this profoundly inexplicable, but I have no basis for believing that nature will go on regularly, but I continue to use inductive reasoning and language. Of course this clue actually doesn't prove God. It is rationally avoidable. However, the cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God.

Tell me is this not scientific evidence ?

Remember, everything happens for a reason & for good & only God knows best .
You wouldn't like anyone to judge you, so humans have no right to judge God !
I used to have doubts too, but on things . I use to ask too many questions too, but all that disappeared, because I have no right to question him ! But I NEVER in my life doubted that there isn't a God . I'm only here, because of Him . Not some explosion ! I'd rather believe in something than nothing . I'd rather have hair on my head than none .
God tells us not to doubt & ask too many questions, be patient, have faith, or you might lose it all ! Don't try to question God & try to act smarter than Him . You're the loss one in the end .
If whatever I've just said did not make sense to you whatsoever, then well, I don't know what to tell you ! I've gave it my all, the rest is up to you to decide . I've got nothing to lose .


Edited by Aya. - 07 August 2012 at 3:02am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

ethereal..MagixX

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3338

Posted: 07 August 2012 at 3:14am | IP Logged
Well, well, well..The favorite questions of theists:
1. What caused Big Bang?
2. What was there BEFORE Time Zero?


For that we first
need to understand what Big Bang exactly is. Big Bang is not an explosion like that of crackers or bomb. Big Bang didn't take place inside space or time. Rather space, time, matter, energy and pretty much everything we know was already there, but wounded up in an infinitesimal point.  The Universe was NOT created at Big Bang. The word "Creation" used in religious sense is meaningless in Physics; it would be prudent to say that the Universe along with Space and Time began to be Unwrapped or Unwounded at that moment.

And since Space and Time itself was wounded up the question of *What was there BEFORE Big Bang?* becomes pretty useless; because there can be no *before* or *after* if Time itself stands still. Similarly, causality too makes sense only W.R.T. Space and time. So the first question, *What CAUSED Big Bang?* too is redundant.

Another favourite argument of Theists is *Science cannot provide all answers*. So freaking what? This is a logical fallacy called *Appeal to Ignorance*. Just because Science is not able to provide answers (at the present moment), should we jump to random conclusions and seek refuge in primitive myths?

In fact this is the very beauty of science that religion can never hope to match. Science accepts its limitations, never claims to be perfect or absolute or final word and it always keeps its doors open for further investigation, criticism and reviews. Religion, on the other hand, pretends to be all-knowing, though most of its answers are simplistic, asinine and self-contradictory, and arrogantly suppresses all its critics with brute force and threat of hell. This difference further manifests as the behaviour of the two groups. If anyone disproves a well-established scientific theory or makes a new discovery that changes previous understandings, the scientific community will bestow upon her/him the highest honor - the Nobel Prize. However if you ever dare to challenge or refute even the most absurd religious dogma, the religious community will ensure that's the very last thing you ever do. Unlike rationalists, self-styled Prophets and God-men are scared of saying "I don't know". That's why they need blasphemy laws and threat of hellfire to guard their ignorance and fraudulence.

Yet another favourite argument of theists is *Evolution, Big Bang, Gravity etc are mere theories on paper*. Perhaps these people have no idea about what it takes a proposition to qualify as a Scientific Theory. They seem to think that any Tom, Dick or Harry can come up with a cock-and-bull story and it would be qualified as a Scientific Theory. A Scientific Theory needs to be logically sound, falsifiable and above all, not contradicted by evidence. If at any point any evidence surfaces that contradicts that theory then it must be immediately reviewed or trashed.  Evolution has so far passed all the above tests and more, and not a single bone or fossil or DNA structure has been discovered so far that contradicts the theory and that is precisely why it is universally accepted as the most probable description of origin and progress of life on this planet. On the other hand the ideas found in various religious texts i.e. Creation of Brahma from Hiranya Garbha found in Vedas or Cleaving of Heaven and Earth or Creation of man from mud and woman from man's ribs found in Bible and Quran etc are nothing but myths and lore. The only people who believe in them do so because of blind faith and not logic or least of all, evidence. They are neither logical nor are they supported by any observable evidence. And the day is not far when these stories shall find their rightful place in 'Children's Fiction' section of Public Libraries.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

sub_rosaBeyond_the_VeilFreethinker112Samraat_92

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13754

Posted: 07 August 2012 at 3:26am | IP Logged
Originally posted by *Woh Ajnabee*

Let's turn the tables on that one - why can't we say that God has always existed and didn't need to be created at some point by someone. Isn't that the same argument? Atheists have a tendency to give so much credit to the universe and refute God's existence, but really the universe is their "god". It is still a supernatural entity that you're putting your faith into.

Nope, not the same. When you say God can exist without creation, that means you agree something can exist without creation. So, you apply the idea to Universe directly. When you can explain something with evident things, bringing imaginary God makes the explanation more complex. So, by Occam's razor, we choose the one with least assumptions.  Also, we can see and observe Universe which is not true for God. So, yeah there is no proof for God.
Universe is not atheist's "God". Universe is just universe, we don't believe it to be conscious and designing and planning things. And universe is not supernatural, it is there to be seen and observed. It is real.


Originally posted by *Woh Ajnabee*

A lot of religious scripture refers to "the beginning of time" implying that God created the universebefore the beginning of time. And if God created the universe before the concept of time began, it implies that God also created time along with our dimensions of the universe. (I think Plato has also made a reference to this concept that "time" and the universe were created at once.) 

If we believe the above to be true, we can argue that God exists outside the dimension of time. In our world, where time is a critical dimension, everything has a cause-and-effect relationship. If we assume God created time, and "time" did not exist before the universe, there is no cause and effect. Therefore, everything in that realm could exist without cause or without being created. 

First of all, not everything that exists in time has to have a cause. Quantum mechanics states that subatomic particles can come into existence by vacuum fluctuation, which is a purely random event. So, you have the effect, creation of particles, but no cause as they result due to a random event.
Another thing, Universe and time came together. Big Bang created the time and space dimensions simultaneously. So, Universe didn't begin in time, but it came into existence together with time. So, since it didn't begin in time, Universe doesn't need a cause to exist.  So, you are inserting a cause, God, where it is not needed and we can explain things without it. So, again you are making the explanation complex, going against Occam's razor.
A singularity existed before Big Bang. How did it came into existence, we are still searching, rather than shouting "God!" at every question. And what is the proof that religious texts are true? It's a circle of logic. The book is true because the book says so! That is stupid. I can also write stories about creation, but without evidence, they are useless. And so are religious books.


Originally posted by *Woh Ajnabee*

If you say the universe is eternal, you're saying a non-intelligent "god" created this world we live in, even if randomly. If that's the case, Occam's razor would not favor your argument since the complexity of the universe would be much easily explained with purposeful, intelligent design than random creation since the latter requires many more assumptions than the former. And by the way, most atheists agree that the universe is not eternal and was created at some point in time (i.e. the Big Bang theory).  

Again, nobody "created" the Universe, it just popped into existence. And no a creator will not simplify the matter because first we have not one evidence of his existence, and second then question will arise how did he came into existence. So, it will be like putting all your proof on one entity of which you have no proof, which is absurd.
And of course Universe is not eternal, it was created by Big Bang. But not at a point in time, because Universe and time both came into existence at the same time.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Samraat_92

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13754

Posted: 07 August 2012 at 3:39am | IP Logged
Originally posted by *Woh Ajnabee*

@Freethinker:

Even science has limits and parameters. After science fails to find evidence or explanation of the origins of the universe, where do you turn to? If science is only based on experiments and hypotheses, is there a chance that it can be wrong? Is it not possible that faith and science can coexist not only in society but also within an individual? Nobody has seen God, nobody can prove the existence of God in a laboratory, but similarly, no scientist can prove that the universe was created randomly. Were you there when it happened? Did anyone see it? After certain parameters, even atheists start going into metaphysics - is that not a religion/faith in itself?

I have already said that science doesn't have all the answers yet. And you can turn nowhere if science fails, because scientific way is the only way by which you are sure of something, because instead of speculation, science provides evidence to its claims. And I will prefer saying "I don't know" rather than making up stories.

No, science cannot be wrong because it provides evidence when it claims something. Hypothesis can be wrong, because it is the initial explanation. But when experiments confirm the hypothesis, it becomes a theory and is true.

No, faith is the absence of evidence and science is based on evidence, so both existing together is oxymoron.

I wasn't there when Chernobyl disaster took place, but by going there today and getting radiation readings, I can tell you what happened there. Similarly, it's not some scientist came up with the idea of Big Bang and everybody started believing him. that's the beauty of science. The model he created, he had to prove it providing evidence. And scientists observed many things in the Universe, which all fit in the model. then only it was accepted.

Anybody can speculate beyond the limit of sciences. But they are exactly that, speculations. Anybody can make up a story because we don't know yet. But, that doesn't make it true.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

sub_rosaRehanism

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13754

Posted: 07 August 2012 at 3:46am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

...

Totally agree to the above. Either prove what you say or just admit that we don't know.

BTW thanks for support, it is tiring to tackle everybody in the thread alone. LOL

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

RehanismSamraat_92

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 90

Summer3 719 29453 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm
By Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

monika. 94 4190 20 September 2011 at 11:49am
By epiphany.
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Summer3 10 779 12 May 2011 at 4:20am
By Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SolidSnake 71 3750 17 September 2010 at 1:42am
By _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

shalini1323 11 708 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm
By Vinzy

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.