How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Falco&Victory]

really? how many times has the creation of an entire universe been "demonstrated without fail for all of human history?" in which lab were they created and in which scientific journal was the experiment described?

It hasn't been, but don't act like you know anything about it because nobody does. The whole **** theory is just a bunch of useless hypotheticals until we launch our laser satellites that will be able to trace time back to the big bang.



YEAH AND HERCULES TOTALLY KILLED A LION WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND ALIENS CAME TO EARTH AT ROSWELL IN 1947. gimmie a break.. are you so gullible that you believe everything you read? think about what youre doing... youre claiming that the very same book that claims to prophesy jesus doing all these things is the one claiming he did all these things! thats as idiotic as saying "tomorrow at noon, snex will turn water to wine!" and then tomorrow at 12:01 PM posting "snex has turned water to wine, the miracle is proven!"
Yeah, cause they're no proof for ANYTHING in the bible.

.....................

 

[Crimson King]

Don't just comment on a quote, it's basically spam. Actually add input.

Also, yea, there is no proof for a lot of things in the bible. The Exodus, for example, has yet to be verified.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I personaly NEVER try to post on topics such as these because they are extreamly touchy and people foam at the mouth if you say the wrong thing so im just goign to keep my opinion quick and clean

I believe in God, why? Because i have Faith that there is a higher form who has the the Devine power.

"This is just stupid, your faith doesnt do much agesnt facts or the lack of facts agesnt God/Bible"

And these comments, all 29 pages of them, dont affect me, i am a United Christian and I am not going to try and tell you your wrong for believing in Provable Fact, and id appritiate it if you didnt try to tell me my views are wrong.

This isnt pointed at anyone, just at the topic itself because these are the kidns of thigns that allways come of Religious bouts

 

[cF=)]

I believe in God, why? Because i have Faith that there is a higher form who has the the Devine power.

This is not necessarily something to despise, but why the christian god... can't your concept of a god be enough to satisfy your need to believe in a higher power?

 

[snex]

It hasn't been, but don't act like you know anything about it because nobody does. The whole **** theory is just a bunch of useless hypotheticals until we launch our laser satellites that will be able to trace time back to the big bang.

im not the one claiming to know anything about it. YOU are. YOU are the one claiming it MUST be your stupid fairy tale for which you have absolutely no evidence.

Yeah, cause they're no proof for ANYTHING in the bible.

what makes you think that the existence of a real king ahaziah lends any support to people turning into salt for looking at a burning city? obviously you didnt pay ANY attention to my original response, because if you had, youd know that parts of the hercules story are true too. for example, ATHENS EXISTED!

 

[Surri-Sama]

I apologize in advance for what I'll say, BUT WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

Microwave background discovered in 1964. They were predicted by the theory and help tracing what the universe looked like, even 15 billion years ago.
Calculations made on the synthesis of light elements (H, He, etc.) during the big bang are surprisingly near the observed abundances in the universe.
Through the equations of general relativity, Einstein knew we could 'go back in time' to some sort of beginning.

If you have any arguments, refute my point. What you just did to snex's post, though, is just a proof of how bad you are at bringing to the table real arguments to support your point. Asserting ridiculous conclusions because you said so is not a debate, that's garbage trashtalking straight out of a teenager.

This is not necessarily something to despise, but why the christian god... can't your concept of a god be enough to satisfy your need to believe in a higher power?

Too tell you the truth its probably out of my own ignorance and lack of knowlage, i dont knwo every Religion and neither do you, or maybe its the big one, why is it Christianity seems to be the only serious religion i know (THAT I KNOW!!!) to have punishment for not following it 101%ly

and its not so much as a need, as it is a want. I definitly dont go around thinking omg is what i did ok with god? I like to think of there beign a God because the Big Bang theory really sucks a LOT of purpose out of life to me, sorry just imo

BTW for anyone who might want to attack me for me 1/2 and 1/2 views abotu all this "STOP" i have a flame shield ^^

I have only posted here to get others insight and feelings towards this subject, not for harassment and stupidity, y'all can keep that for your personal lifes =.=

 

[snex]

I like to think of there beign a God because the Big Bang theory really sucks a LOT of purpose out of life to me,

so truth is less important to you than a feeling of purpose?

 

[AltF4]

I personaly NEVER try to post on topics such as these because they are extreamly touchy and people foam at the mouth if you say the wrong thing so im just goign to keep my opinion quick and clean

...
and id appritiate it if you didnt try to tell me my views are wrong.

You do realize that this is the debate hall, right? We're here to debate. Please don't come in and spout your belief without any kind of support and then claim immunity from debate because you might get your feelings hurt.

What are you afraid of by debating? That you might realize your beliefs are without basis, or are inherently contradictory? If you could show me that mine are I will abandon them. How about you? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[RDK]

This is not necessarily something to despise, but why the christian god... can't your concept of a god be enough to satisfy your need to believe in a higher power?

This is what I can't stand about Christianity, and modern religions in general--they have the audacity to say that their religion is the one and only, and based on nothing more than faith. Gimme a break.

Shouldn't the mere possibility of a higher intelligence be enough, without trying to figure him out and apply a whole way of life to it?

 

[ComradeSAL]

so truth is less important to you than a feeling of purpose?

I'm an agnostic, but since the Christians aren't doing a very good job (do they EVER do a very good job?), I think I'll turn coat for a bit and support the belief in some higher power (not a Christian God, but some sort of God).

The main problem with many of the atheistic arguments in this thread is that there seems to be a clear double standard when it comes to the atheist's definition of truth. Many of the atheists in this thread have been claiming that truth acts a certain way. Namely, that until a belief is verified it is not truth. However, this view of truth is in and of itself an unverified belief, which results in a clear contradiction.

No matter what an atheist says, there are unverified beliefs that everyone has that we take as being true. One classic example was first brought up by Hume (I love this guy): cause and effect.

Imagine a house with a dog and a mailman that comes every day. Every day, when the mailman comes, the dog barks at the mailman. After the dog starts barking, the mailman always leaves. In the dog's mind, the barking is causing the mailman to leave. After all, every time the dog barks, the mailman leaves.

This example shows very strongly how correlation does not lead to causation. However, we nonetheless hold the belief that in certain cases of correlation there is causation. For instance, when we think of a billiard ball colliding with another stationary ball, we think that the impact is causing the ball to move. There is no evidence to support this; in reality the two events may merely be highly correlated.

Thus, the statement, "we shouldn't believe in God because his existence is unverified" is false because we already hold countless unverified beliefs in how truth and the universe work.

 

[AltF4]

Well said, Comrade. (That still just sounds cool to say, lol.)

I would have two responses:

1) It is clear that no matter who you are, you must put faith in certain beliefs. The only thing that is under debate is what we decide to be 'rational' beliefs and which are 'irrational'.

I, personally, believe that causation cannot be violated and that the axioms of math and logic are true. However none of these things can ever be proven. (It has been proven that they cannot be proven, if you follow me.)

I do not take issue with 'faith' or 'belief' because I have my own. What I take issue with is having beliefs for the wrong reasons. Beliefs are temporary, they are provisional. They are the idea which best fits observation at the time.

2) The last thing you said you made a quote:

"we shouldn't believe in God because his existence is unverified"

I find this to be a straw man argument. The reason you shouldn't believe in a god is not because "his existence is unverified" but because there is no reason to believe in the first place.

The implication in your statement seems to be
"There is good evidence for a god, but he has yet to be completely verified." Which is just up and down false. There is not one shred of evidence, not one thin morsel of indication as to any kind of higher power.

Beliefs should be held because there is a reason to, because that is what evidence indicates. There is absolutely zero evidence of any kind of god.

 

[ComradeSAL]

1. Under what criteria can we possibly decide which axioms are rational and which are not? All of them are axioms, and all of them are irrational in the sense that we have no evidence to make us believe them. The only way to rationally disprove an axiom is to use other axioms to show a contradiction.

2.

The reason you shouldn't believe in a god is not because "his existence is unverified" but because there is no reason to believe in the first place.

OK, fair enough, but even with your revision my argument still largely holds.

There might be no reason to begin to believe (I won't argue this point now - maybe later). However, if other people have already accepted the existence of God as an axiom, there is no rational reason for them to stop believing either, as long as they do not adopt any new axioms that contradict this belief.

 

[snex]

we dont get to randomly pick and choose our axioms. we pick the ones we do because they are readily observed by many people at the same time, and they continue to be observed every time we look. if they changed tomorrow, we would change our axioms. that is the difference. no faith is necessary. even when looking at correlations, we can *determine* causation by performing scientific experiments - thats exactly what they do. they separate out non-caused correlations.

picking an axiom of god is entirely random because it is not readily observed by anybody, and even worse, it NEVER reliably leads to true statements and OFTEN leads to false ones.

 

[ComradeSAL]

You DO realize that it is an act of faith to believe that we can draw truthful inferences from our observations of the external world (UNLESS you presuppose God)? There is no way to prove this, because any evidence you could provide would be circular.

 

[snex]

You DO realize that it is an act of faith to believe that we can draw truthful inferences from our observations of the external world (UNLESS you presuppose God)? There is no way to prove this, because any evidence you could provide would be circular.

it is not an act of faith. you try it and see if it works. so far, it seems to have worked. if it stopped working tomorrow, we would change our strategy.

and throwing magic spells and gods around doesnt solve the problem no matter what. thats just stupid.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I really don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying. There is no way to "try it and see if it works" because any data you could use to verify the statement, "we can draw truthful inferences from observations of the external world," would be from the external world.

...and yes, God does solve this problem quite nicely. Read up on Descartes for more information, but the basic argument is: an infinitely good God would not deceive our perceptions. I consider God to basically be the cheat code of all philosophy; if you use it everything else becomes easy.

 

[snex]

I really don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying. There is no way to "try it and see if it works" because any data you could use to verify the statement, "we can draw truthful inferences from observations of the external world," would be from the external world.

and this is entirely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with your original claim about faith being necessary. we try some action, and if it doesnt have the results we want, we try some other action until it does have the results we want. we do it over and over again to make sure it wasnt just a fluke. if it keeps working we put that action on the list of things that works to achieve that particular result. if it stops working, we erase it from the list and start over. at no point is faith necessary. you dont need faith that you draw "true" inferences from the external world, you dont even need faith that there is an external world at all.

all youre ever doing is keeping a list of actions and the results they appear to lead to. the list is not immutable.

...and yes, God does solve this problem quite nicely. Read up on Descartes for more information, but the basic argument is: an infinitely good God would not deceive our perceptions. I consider God to basically be the cheat code of all philosophy; if you use it everything else becomes easy.

no, god does not solve the problem. asserting it does does not mean it does. and thats really all you have, an assertion that it does. a created universe suffers from the problem of induction just as much as an uncreated universe does.

 

[ComradeSAL]

and this is entirely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with your original claim about faith being necessary. we try some action, and if it doesnt have the results we want, we try some other action until it does have the results we want.

What, exactly, are the results we want? Usually in scientific research, we want the truth. And there is no way to know that the results we get are an indication of the truth without making a leap of faith.

no, god does not solve the problem. asserting it does does not mean it does. and thats really all you have, an assertion that it does. a created universe suffers from the problem of induction just as much as an uncreated universe does.

I dunno, it seems like a simple argument to me.

1. An infinitely good God exists. (premise)
2. This infinitely good God would not deceive us by virtue of being "infinitely good."
3. Hence, our observations line up with the real world, because anything else would be deception.

Note the a priori reasoning. The scientific method, by definition, is a posteriori. Thus, science can never prove things outside of the observable world. Case in point: the true nature of cause and effect.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I apologize in advance for what I'll say, BUT WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

Microwave background discovered in 1964. They were predicted by the theory and help tracing what the universe looked like, even 15 billion years ago.
Calculations made on the synthesis of light elements (H, He, etc.) during the big bang are surprisingly near the observed abundances in the universe.
Through the equations of general relativity, Einstein knew we could 'go back in time' to some sort of beginning.

If you have any arguments, refute my point. What you just did to snex's post, though, is just a proof of how bad you are at bringing to the table real arguments to support your point. Asserting ridiculous conclusions because you said so is not a debate, that's garbage trashtalking straight out of a teenager.

This is not necessarily something to despise, but why the christian god... can't your concept of a god be enough to satisfy your need to believe in a higher power?

WTF...
Ok, we KNOW about the waves, but we haven't built many good satellites to detect them. In a few years America is launching satellites with the ability to gather data from these microwaves and to an extent piece together what caused them. How was i trash talking, just because we know what happened does give us any idea how or why, that's why new theories are still being formed. It's not a valid argument to say that a big bang theory(see, theory) occurring disproves god either, because NOBODY knows what the singularity was like(but the new satellites SHOULD be able to detect the moment of the singularity). I didn't say anything stupid in that post that wasn't true, all we have are a bunch of theories until we get some good proof.

im not the one claiming to know anything about it. YOU are. YOU are the one claiming it MUST be your stupid fairy tale for which you have absolutely no evidence.

No, I never said that. I was saying that the big bang theory is not a valid topic for argument if it's still just a theory. I never even said that god made the universe, I have only pointed out that christians are not just following some religion blindly.

what makes you think that the existence of a real king ahaziah lends any support to people turning into salt for looking at a burning city? obviously you didnt pay ANY attention to my original response, because if you had, youd know that parts of the hercules story are true too. for example, ATHENS EXISTED!

Ok, no 'good proof'. So everything is just a theory(like the big bang theory). If those are our basis of argument, then there's no point in arguing.

I post a few comments and get flamed because people jump on me, ASSUMING i'm Christian first(which I am, but there is no evidence to state that ANYWHERE in those post). I feel like I just got attacked for my religion. I can't even have a serious argument in this place anymore.

not demonstrated....

It's been demonstrated without fail for all of human history o.O
Nothing has ever just 'happened', SOMETHING caused/created it.

Lol, but the attitude i've been seeing has been a lot like 'if you can't prove god is real then he isn't!'
Really, for thousands of years people have witnessed miracles, prophets, and most importantly the coming of christ(also prophesied some odd six or seven hundred years earlier).
Of course, nothing is proven until the Jews reclaim their temple and stand in all four corners, which according to them will FORCE the coming of christ(too bad terrorists own it lol)

TOO MANY HYPOTHETICALS

I said nothing offensive here...

YEAH AND HERCULES TOTALLY KILLED A LION WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND ALIENS CAME TO EARTH AT ROSWELL IN 1947. gimmie a break.. are you so gullible that you believe everything you read? think about what youre doing... youre claiming that the very same book that claims to prophesy jesus doing all these things is the one claiming he did all these things! thats as idiotic as saying "tomorrow at noon, snex will turn water to wine!" and then tomorrow at 12:01 PM posting "snex has turned water to wine, the miracle is proven!"

Then i get mocked by an atheist for being of Christian faith...

really? how many times has the creation of an entire universe been "demonstrated without fail for all of human history?" in which lab were they created and in which scientific journal was the experiment described?

It hasn't been, but don't act like you know anything about it because nobody does. The whole **** theory is just a bunch of useless hypotheticals until we launch our laser satellites that will be able to trace time back to the big bang.



YEAH AND HERCULES TOTALLY KILLED A LION WITH HIS BARE HANDS AND ALIENS CAME TO EARTH AT ROSWELL IN 1947. gimmie a break.. are you so gullible that you believe everything you read? think about what youre doing... youre claiming that the very same book that claims to prophesy jesus doing all these things is the one claiming he did all these things! thats as idiotic as saying "tomorrow at noon, snex will turn water to wine!" and then tomorrow at 12:01 PM posting "snex has turned water to wine, the miracle is proven!"
Yeah, cause they're no proof for ANYTHING in the bible.

Then I make a TRUTHFUL statement, and a sarcastic statement against the completely rude and pointless comment that was made PURELY to insult me.

I apologize in advance for what I'll say, BUT WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

Microwave background discovered in 1964. They were predicted by the theory and help tracing what the universe looked like, even 15 billion years ago.
Calculations made on the synthesis of light elements (H, He, etc.) during the big bang are surprisingly near the observed abundances in the universe.
Through the equations of general relativity, Einstein knew we could 'go back in time' to some sort of beginning.

If you have any arguments, refute my point. What you just did to snex's post, though, is just a proof of how bad you are at bringing to the table real arguments to support your point. Asserting ridiculous conclusions because you said so is not a debate, that's garbage trashtalking straight out of a teenager.

And then i get jumped on by cF=) because he says that the big bang isn't a useless topic for discussion even when people are throwing the theory around like a law, when we don't know what happened. There's no intelligent discussion to be had here. There was NO reason for snex to attack me like that.

 

[snex]

What, exactly, are the results we want? Usually in scientific research, we want the truth. And there is no way to know that the results we get are an indication of the truth without making a leap of faith.

the results we want are the results that would happen if we assume , hypothetically, that cause and effect works. science, by the way, never asserts that its conclusions are "truth."

I dunno, it seems like a simple argument to me.

1. An infinitely good God exists. (premise)
2. This infinitely good God would not deceive us by virtue of being "infinitely good."
3. Hence, our observations line up with the real world, because anything else would be deception.

Note the a priori reasoning. The scientific method, by definition, is a posteriori. Thus, science can never prove things outside of the observable world. Case in point: the true nature of cause and effect.

the argument fails because we dont observe any gods. if this infinitely good god exists, and he would not deceive us, then he must necessarily show himself to us, otherwise we are deceived into thinking he doesnt exist.

and F&V, why are you pushing the stupid creationist crap of "just a theory?" you clearly have no idea what "theory" means to a scientist.

 

[Caturdayz]

the results we want are the results that would happen if we assume , hypothetically, that cause and effect works. science, by the way, never asserts that its conclusions are "truth."



the argument fails because we dont observe any gods. if this infinitely good god exists, and he would not deceive us, then he must necessarily show himself to us, otherwise we are deceived into thinking he doesnt exist.

and F&V, why are you pushing the stupid creationist crap of "just a theory?" you clearly have no idea what "theory" means to a scientist.

While I am a believer in the "Big Bang Theory"... Creationism does fall under the category of a theory.

There are 2 different uses for the word theory. In science its a logical or mathematical explanation. However in common usage and can be used to express an opinion or belief.

 

[snex]

creationism is not a theory. learn what scientists mean when they say "theory." no, im not going to educate you. this should be a prerequisite before being allowed into the debate hall.

 

[Caturdayz]

creationism is not a theory. learn what scientists mean when they say "theory." no, im not going to educate you. this should be a prerequisite before being allowed into the debate hall.

Theory Definition 1: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Theory Definition 2: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

Yes I know what Scientists define as a theory, I was not challenging this however you were incorrect in your assumption that creationism is not a theory (definition 2).

 

[ComradeSAL]

the results we want are the results that would happen if we assume , hypothetically, that cause and effect works. science, by the way, never asserts that its conclusions are "truth."

No, no! If you don't accept the scientific method as a way to find truth, there is no reason to practice it. Don't degrade science like that. Science is almost certainly a version of truth, and in my opinion it is the best version of truth.

Why do I think it is the best? Because I like it the most. And, at the end of the day, that is the best you can do when formulating axioms.

the argument fails because we dont observe any gods. if this infinitely good god exists, and he would not deceive us, then he must necessarily show himself to us, otherwise we are deceived into thinking he doesnt exist.

There are many different ways around this counterargument, but the easiest one that comes to mind is that God is not hiding from us - all it takes is a leap of faith and you will find him. Argh, I'm beginning to sound like a Christian.

Also:

@Caturdayz: You are arguing with Snex out of context. When a creationist says, "evolution is just a theory," they are confusing the two definitions that you put forth. So Snex is absolutely right to call the guy out on it.

 

[Rici]

There are many different ways around this counterargument, but the easiest one that comes to mind is that God is not hiding from us - all it takes is a leap of faith and you will find him. Argh, I'm beginning to sound like a Christian.

Isn't that some sort of fallacious(circular?) argument? That you have to believe in something first to get the reason to believe in it?(if you understand what I mean)

Now that I think of it, the same argument could be used against all atheists. We have to believe our observations are true in order to believe in the theories that come out of them. The only difference between atheists and theists is that atheists at least have got something to observe.

 

[cF=)]

atheists at least have got something to observe.

No, it's not a leap of faith when it's based on logic; you're right on this quote though

People are mixing it up since the beginning, the two definitions of a theory don't equal each others. One is based on facts, while the other's a mere imaginative way to see the world. Science is theory, the rest stands as religion and should be kept to that level.

 

[ComradeSAL]

No, Riciardos is absolutely correct: besides global skepticism (which is a ******** philosophy that no one practices anyway), every belief system requires a leap of faith. Science may be based on facts, except you need to make the leap that the "facts" are actually facts. This is what I have been trying to say all along.

Also: no, my argument is not circular. I'm not saying that proof that God exists is that people believe in him (that would indeed be circular, unless you adopt a very radical and unscientific version of truth); I'm saying that God is not necessarily deceiving us by hiding, because he might not be hiding from us. We might be hiding from him.

 

[snex]

No, no! If you don't accept the scientific method as a way to find truth, there is no reason to practice it. Don't degrade science like that. Science is almost certainly a version of truth, and in my opinion it is the best version of truth.

Why do I think it is the best? Because I like it the most. And, at the end of the day, that is the best you can do when formulating axioms.

im sorry but you are wrong about science. science differs from logic and math in that it is subject to the problem of induction. no scientific conclusion can ever be called "true," even if it is in fact true. at best, science only approximates and approaches truth. it is impossible to determine that we have achieved it, because tomorrow, everything may work differently. and if it does, we simply erase the list of "things that work" and start a new one.

There are many different ways around this counterargument, but the easiest one that comes to mind is that God is not hiding from us - all it takes is a leap of faith and you will find him. Argh, I'm beginning to sound like a Christian.

that isnt a counter-argument at all. requiring faith to believe something IS deception. why else do you think every single con artist in existence uses the same exact claim?

 

[Zero Beat]

Honestly, we're all wasting our time. This entire argument is inane. Educate yourself in the real world instead of getting slaughtered for a blind belief.

that isnt a counter-argument at all. requiring faith to believe something IS deception. why else do you think every single con artist in existence uses the same exact claim?

I hope you know this will be overlooked by them.

 

[Surri-Sama]

so truth is less important to you than a feeling of purpose?

no not entirly

because neither side can be 100% agesnt or for, so to me it seems illogical to say

"God MIGHT not exist so ill HOPE he doesnt, because if he does im fawked"

 

[snex]

why do people automatically assume that if god exists, and we think he doesnt, that we are "fawked?" if the premise is that we cant be sure if any gods exist, then we definitely have no idea how those gods would react to our unbelief.

 

[Surri-Sama]

why do people automatically assume that if god exists, and we think he doesnt, that we are "fawked?" if the premise is that we cant be sure if any gods exist, then we definitely have no idea how those gods would react to our unbelief.

im goign by what the bible tells me, and 99% if you dont belive he exists, you will be a sinner, remember thigns we take for granted in todays world are still sins according to the bible

 

[snex]

what makes you think the bible has any more insight onto the matter than any other holy book, or even some random guy on a street corner ranting?

and if pascal's wager only makes sense if you are required to hold the bible's truth as a premise, dont you think its rather dishonest to use it against people who dont accept that premise?

 

[Surri-Sama]

what makes you think the bible has any more insight onto the matter than any other holy book, or even some random guy on a street corner ranting?

and if pascal's wager only makes sense if you are required to hold the bible's truth as a premise, dont you think its rather dishonest to use it against people who dont accept that premise?

Your being really agressive man O_o

I never said the Bible did, well i did but Hypotheticly, i didnt say "bibles right bish stfu!"

All i ment was if the Bible is right, and the world ended tomorow most of the world is doomed, and thats obvious no?

 

[snex]

yes, just as obvious that if the quran is right, and the world ended tomorrow, then most of us are doomed.

just as obvious that if the vedas are right, and the world ended tomorrow, then most of us are doomed.

i can invent any number of absurd claims that if were true, youd be doomed for denying. it doesnt make those claims any more likely to be true, and you must agree with me because you dont believe any of those absurd claims either. you only believe ONE of them, which has no advantages whatsoever in regards to evidence against any of the rest. you are being inconsistent, which means you dont really buy your own arguments, yet you expect others to do so.

 

[Surri-Sama]

yes, just as obvious that if the quran is right, and the world ended tomorrow, then most of us are doomed.

just as obvious that if the vedas are right, and the world ended tomorrow, then most of us are doomed.

i can invent any number of absurd claims that if were true, youd be doomed for denying. it doesnt make those claims any more likely to be true, and you must agree with me because you dont believe any of those absurd claims either. you only believe ONE of them, which has no advantages whatsoever in regards to evidence against any of the rest. you are being inconsistent, which means you dont really buy your own arguments, yet you expect others to do so.

No see your misunderstanding my point of view, im not really a strong Christian your just really really tryign to be Anti Christian, im very open to ideas, and you did NOT read my first post in this topic, please do so before continueing because your really really pushign the wrong person xD

 

[Caturdayz]

No see your misunderstanding my point of view, im not really a strong Christian your just really really tryign to be Anti Christian, im very open to ideas, and you did NOT read my first post in this topic, please do so before continueing because your really really pushign the wrong person xD

Well this board has pretty much evolved into a troll-war between Christians and Non-Christians... he is on topic.

 

[cF=)]

Science may be based on facts, except you need to make the leap that the "facts" are actually facts. This is what I have been trying to say all along.

May I suggest you change the word fact to "observable fact", which holds a completely different connotation. I have no need to believe that the universe is lying to me, because when I make a rock fall from my hand, it will always do so at the same speed, following the same acceleration. Facts are named so because they can be replicate. Math is made from axioms, on which we've been able to build a complete language. If it fails to do a task tomorrow, we have the option to look into our basic reasoning and see where the problem lies.

What you're doing now is stating god as a fact, even though he classifies as a belief rather than a theory. Science doesn't need a leap of faith because it observes the world and draw laws following the consistency of an experience.

I'm saying that God is not necessarily deceiving us by hiding, because he might not be hiding from us. We might be hiding from him.

And where do you get that from?

 

[Eor]

How could we be hiding from someone that's omnipotent and be succeeding?

 

[ComradeSAL]

im sorry but you are wrong about science. science differs from logic and math in that it is subject to the problem of induction. no scientific conclusion can ever be called "true," even if it is in fact true. at best, science only approximates and approaches truth. it is impossible to determine that we have achieved it, because tomorrow, everything may work differently. and if it does, we simply erase the list of "things that work" and start a new one.

Yes, the entire idea of science is that through repeated observations we approach the truth. This assumption is a leap of faith.

..why else do you think every single con artist in existence uses the same exact claim?

You are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

i.e:

All scientists are anti-semitic, because the nazis used science.

...I have no need to believe that the universe is lying to me, because when I make a rock fall from my hand, it will always do so at the same speed, following the same acceleration. Facts are named so because they can be replicate. Math is made from axioms, on which we've been able to build a complete language. If it fails to do a task tomorrow, we have the option to look into our basic reasoning and see where the problem lies.

Ok, and if someone who believes in God finds evidence tomorrow against the existence of God, he can stop believing in him. Just like there is no need for you to believe the universe is lying to you, a Christian has no need to believe that God doesn't exist.

The problem is that you are treating God as a hypothesis, while Christians treat him as an axiom.

What you're doing now is stating god as a fact, even though he classifies as a belief rather than a theory. Science doesn't need a leap of faith because it observes the world and draw laws following the consistency of an experience.

...and, in doing so, makes the leap of faith that experience can lead to truth.

How could we be hiding from someone that's omnipotent and be succeeding?

By hiding, I obviously don't mean the duck and cover variety.

If a person you thought of as a friend suddenly came up to you and, for no reason, demanded proof that you were his friend, you'd probably tell him to sod off. In friendship, you have to meet a person halfway; if, for every new person you meet, you don't show any signs of friendship and instead demand proof that HE is your friend, you will never make any friends.

Similarly, if a scientist demands proof of God before he makes a leap of faith, then God has no reason to show himself. This is not deception, it is reciprocity. You have to meet God halfway.