itt we discus philosophical theories

[Slavic]

^ Your logic is just as illogical as the theists on this thread. I could ask you the same proof that you ask the theists. Could you please disproof god for me so that I can go on with my sinning? Thank you.

[Lux]

^ Your logic is just as illogical as the theists on this thread. I could ask you the same proof that you ask the theists. Could you please disproof god for me so that I can go on with my sinning? Thank you.

 

Its impossible to disproof God entirely because of the way in which he is described. Anything you throw at God he can magically still be there.

 

Despite that, you can still disprove a lot of things in the Bible, things like the Earth was created 5000 years ago exactly how it is today (or something like that) which is completely wrong. I don't think you can avoid these things, you can't believe half way and cut out the things that can't be unproven.

[Loganator456]

Despite that, you can still disprove a lot of things in the Bible, things like the Earth was created 5000 years ago exactly how it was today (or something like that) which is completely wrong. I don't think you can avoid these things, you can't believe half way and cut out the things that can't be unproven.

Exactly. Anyone who believes that is stupid, no exceptions. The amount of scientific proof totally rules that out, among many other things in the bible.

[Slavic]

Its impossible to disproof God entirely because of the way in which he is described. Anything you throw at God he can magically still be there.

 

Despite that, you can still disprove a lot of things in the Bible, things like the Earth was created 5000 years ago exactly how it is today (or something like that) which is completely wrong. I don't think you can avoid these things, you can't believe half way and cut out the things that can't be unproven.

 

Since when did the validity of the Bible become the tipping point for whether "god" exists? There are more religious texts then the bible, not to mention the numerous beleifs that don't follow a religious text. These religious texts are man made so it is acceptable for them to contain some error, expecialy due to the fact that they can be interpreted so many ways ( Like how you interpret the Bible as a fanaticle Christian interprets the Bible).

 

What ever crackpot theory you can come up with to feel comfortable with your view of life and reality will always have a hole in it because like you said, you can't scientificly disprove the notion of "god". No matter how hard you try to break down all the components that surround "god", you can't ignore the glaring phenomenon that "god" presents itself in our world and our way of life.

[Lux]

Since when did the validity of the Bible become the tipping point for whether "god" exists? There are more religious texts then the bible, not to mention the numerous beleifs that don't follow a religious text. These religious texts are man made so it is acceptable for them to contain some error, expecialy due to the fact that they can be interpreted so many ways ( Like how you interpret the Bible as a fanaticle Christian interprets the Bible).

 

What ever crackpot theory you can come up with to feel comfortable with your view of life and reality will always have a hole in it because like you said, you can't scientificly disprove the notion of "god". No matter how hard you try to break down all the components that surround "god", you can't ignore the glaring phenomenon that "god" presents itself in our world and our way of life.

 

I know that the Bible isn't all of religion but, based on the religion of most people on this forum, and it being a book I know atleast something about I chose that for an example.

 

Its a very annoying situation how religion has been designed and defended in such a way that it can't be disproved (you even said human error for the "main book", which smells like a bs excuse to me but, theres always something to use right?

 

Nvm though..........

[Huwajux]

I know that the Bible isn't all of religion but, based on the religion of most people on this forum, and it being a book I know atleast something about I chose that for an example.

 

Its a very annoying situation how religion has been designed and defended in such a way that it can't be disproved (you even said human error for the "main book", which smells like a bs excuse to me but, theres always something to use right?

 

Nvm though..........

Religion has not been manipulated at all so that it is impossible to disprove. You just simply can't. Don't try to cover your tracks by making referrence purely to Christianity. The existence of God cannot be proven nor disproven. Also, of course people want to believe in a God, but don't be so narrow-minded to see that as being the sole reason they do.

 

People believe in a greater being because of the overwhelming probability that there is; because they have obviously not shut their minds off to deeper contemplations of their own existence. They are open-minded enough to accept that there possibly is a God. Even agnostics have an open enough mind to accept the possibility.

 

I don't want to offend anyone, but I personally do not see the logical reasoning behind being an Athiest. An Athiest by definition is someone who denys the existence of a God. This means that they completely disregard any possibility that there is an existence beyond their own comprehension. There is a famous quote which would get my point across but I cannot remember the person's name... I'll look it up later.

Exactly. Anyone who believes that is stupid, no exceptions. The amount of scientific proof totally rules that out, among many other things in the bible.

If you are going to start a flame war, please leave. People here are trying to have a discussion and we don't need you starting anything off, thanks.

 

Scientific proof cannot rule anything out, because by God's very definition, he himself and anything related to him does not have to abide by the laws of science.

[LegalSmash]

There are no athiests on the defendant's chair in the courtroom, or in foxholes.

[Omar]

It's such a same that it religion has been abused through out the time of humankind.

 

For almost every religion there has been "abuse" or manipulation.

 

Just ask me for examples and i'll name them.

 

 

(I'm only speaking for christianity and islam)

[Bullet Wound]

For Religion:

First off religion was the starting point of the human species morality and self-awareness. Since most religious text were created really long ago, it can be assumed that for the most part the were being created to pretty much fill in the void of everything that we didn't understand. One of the biggest being, how were we all created the simplest answer is by some higher power, as throughout all of our time as a species we have always view the world we lived is as have a hierarchy, in which it went animals; the various ranks of humans; and our creators. To say we were created by...well nothing would conflict with our beliefs that in the chain of live and reality there is always something above and below you, humans cannot qualify as being one of the extremists.

 

For God:

You can't disprove or prove god, because as some people said he has made it so he no longer exist within our reality, and as such is outside our realm of thought and our ability to reason his existence into reality. Within our plane of existence it is possible he does not exist at all, he exist higher up in an unknown realm. However if he does not exist at all it will still go along with the theory that he exist outside our realm of existence and therefore exist anyway in a way we can't comprehend. To deny the existence of something above us affects the chain hierarchy we have lived with for so long, and therefore contradicts everything we are as human beings.

 

All this being said, i am not religious, however i do believe its foolish not the acknowledge even the possibility that something greater than you exists.

[Lux]

People believe in a greater being because of the overwhelming probability that there is; because they have obviously not shut their minds off to deeper contemplations of their own existence. They are open-minded enough to accept that there possibly is a God. Even agnostics have an open enough mind to accept the possibility.

 

Please explain how there is an overwhelming probability that there is a greater being. You can't so, don't suggest such things. You get defensive about me even mentioning proof yet you go and say something very close minded which doesn't really go with the whole "faith thing". Religious people are not more open minded, you could say that athiests are open-minded enough to accept that possibly evolutionism is the "true thing". Again close minded . Agnostics are open minded because they do not have a certain opinion either way, whilst athiests/religious dudes do believe in something, theres no middle apart from Agnostic. I guess you could say that you aren't sure either way but sway more to one, and personally I am an Agnostic swaying to the evolutionary side, but I've never said God IS NOT, or denied anything else without proof. If I do then I will probably look back and think "I was wrong", because from what I've seen the evolutionary side fits pretty well but, I haven't closed my mind completely.

 

I don't want to offend anyone, but I personally do not see the logical reasoning behind being an Athiest. An Athiest by definition is someone who denys the existence of a God. This means that they completely disregard any possibility that there is an existence beyond their own comprehension. There is a famous quote which would get my point across but I cannot remember the person's name... I'll look it up later.

 

I don't want to offend anyone, but I personally do not see the logical reasoning behind being religious. A religious person by definition is someone who denys the theory of Evolutionism (or any other theories). This means that they completely disregard any possibility that the Evolutionary theory is correct. Read what you are saying, its nuts........ I know a famous quote which gets your point across...."DOH".

 

 

Scientific proof cannot rule anything out, because by God's very definition, he himself and anything related to him does not have to abide by the laws of science.

 

I've understood this the whole time I do not need mind bashing, I've merely thought that this general theory is not legitimate in my mind. If it isn't a mainstream religion any theory needs proof, if I say "There is a gigantic cheese dog God" and say its my religion people will disregard it, but its no different to any other religion in the sense that all you have is faith. Huwajux I thought you had some OK points but, you showed me how wrong I was.