Its ok that some people don't believe in him, everyone is free to have their opinion, and the more argueing you do on a computer won't change others minds. I however do believe in him, he is not a part of my everyday life, but I accpet that he exists, and I do believe he is in full control, everything happens for a reason. Everyone goes back upon the "Big Bang Theory". It is a probabilty, and evolution did unfold, not Adam and Eve. But then again, what caused the Big Bang hmmm? So I believe God is the root of everything, but just made the beginning, and let everything else unfold while he sat back and had a beer. I do believe in him for one thing and one thing only, in the afterlife, I wanna make sure im goin up....not down.
Ok if you say that thisisnotanalt the post after my last one.
Then how could you say anything that has been *scientificly* proven be true. Some thing were proven true by science has been proven right has been reproven wrong. For ex. How Albert Einstein proved whats hin name that (I forget the guys name) That stars move towards the light. When before it was thought it was common sense that light doesn't aflict the course of stars.
Could you please use better grammar? I can barely understand you.
Also, science is not on the same level as religion. Religion is about faith, not correctness - science is about correctness, not faith. They're entirely different. And if something is scientifically proven, then it's proven and therefore couldn't be refuted. If something was refuted, then obviously the proof was faulty, no?
I like to view it as a little cage match(how immature of me, I know) :P but in all honesty religion has remained virtually the same for a couple thousand years, while scientific ideas are constantly being proven wrong and thrown away.
There are NO ways to disprove the Big Bang theory.
There most definitly are. life. no way it started from a speck of super dense matter. and if i'm wrong then who cares?! there are other ways. do i know them? no. and why should I? I'm a 14 year old kid with dreams of being a rockstar. I'll leave the theory disproving to people like you that believe it is right. cause believe me it'll happen. someone that believes the theory with all their mind will come across something that will disprove the theory.
life. no way it started from a speck of super dense matter.
No way life started because an invisible man created it out of clay.
See? Same goes for religion. You're viewing the theory at the surface, and using twisted 'logic' to determine it's impossibility without even having a basic understanding of the theory.
And it's possible that it will be disproved - but it's the most valid theory now, so it's logical to accept it.
And guess what? I'm a 12-year-old kid who dreams about food and a good life. I'm less qualified to mull over this kind of thing then you are. But you know what? I still do. It's good intellectual exercise, and debate is generally enjoyable.
And the reason science is changing is because we're advancing - gaining more understanding and knowledge. Science is changing because we're discovering and learning ore. Growing. But religion's proverbial crux to bear is that it doesn't change - no matter how anachronistic it's ideals become, it doesn't change. Because then it would be breaking it's own promises.
No way life started because an invisible man created it out of clay.
who said anything about him being invisible? and he didn't created life out of clay...only mankind :P
You're viewing the theory at the surface, and using twisted 'logic' to determine it's impossibility without even having a basic understanding of the theory.
I know quite a bit more about it than you think. like i posted a few pages back, I'm kin to a man that helped prove the theory.
trust me when i saw it's equaly if not more absurd as God.
religion's proverbial crux to bear is that it doesn't change - no matter how anachronistic it's ideals become, it doesn't change. Because then it would be breaking it's own promises.
It continues to pull through because it is still possible. Why? because it takes all that people know to be scientifically true and throws it out the window. religion is your imagination in real life. and the best part is that it really IS possible.
Not necessarily. All you have to do is look at previous societies which outlawed homosexuality or infringed upon black civil rights to disprove this argument. What a society considers to be legal/illegal does not necessarily make them morally right/wrong.
a society chooses something to be legal/illegal, than it is also morally right/wrong, to a majority of this society. otherwise they would simply choose new laws. you are bringing great examples to it. homosexuality. 50 years ago it was probably illegal. today it is perfectly legal and accepted in most democratic countries.
as to a moral set. yes to religous people it is more given to them then if you are not religous. but lets not make things to simple. i thing, that most religous people, do question the moral rules of the church and decide upon their own feeling of right or wrong whether something is good or bad(condom-debate etc). so there are adjusting their own moral code,too.
and about changing moral standards just because know you want to do something. wouldnt you rather just behave wrong instead of changing everything you believe is right? and if you change your morality everytime it is comfortable to do it, then on which values can it be founded. i think if you change your morality largely just because you want something to be good out of the sudden, then you just try to justify doing something.
who said anything about him being invisible? and he didn't created life out of clay...only mankind :P
And that makes it soooo much more creible T_T
--------
I know quite a bit more about it than you think. like i posted a few pages back, I'm kin to a man that helped prove the theory.
Then you would know that the Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of life - just the Universe. And that the speck of matter didn't explode, it was just compressed and then expanded. And that it wouldn't have to have an origin because our methods of causation and time and such would be inapplicable because time and space are connected, and all space would be in one spot - therefore, there would be no time anywhere except inside the speck. Really, it's not absurd - it's a valid and credible theory.
--------
Why? because it takes all that people know to be scientifically true and throws it out the window.
. . .but it does nothing to actually argue or disprove scientific theories.
And yes, it Is possible. I accept that the Bible could be right - but that's improbable. The Bible is thousands of years old, unsupported, written by people who knew nothing about science or anything like that, and makes many outrageous claims. It's possible, but it's a slim chance.
And if you think religion is supposed to prove science wrong and be correct, I think you're missing the point of religion altogether. It' not about correctness, it's about faith - putting faith in something and receiving comfort in return. It's NOT about being correct at all. It doesn't have to be correct - you just have to have faith. Which is why religion and science are on different levels - religion is not science,. and science is not religion. They're not comparable.
Eh, most of this stuff has already been responded to by others, but a couple of things I wanted to address..
There are a million and one things in everyday life that science can't explain/give a reason for. Religion is one of these things. And frankly I'm tired of arguing a basically lost cause.
Actually science *can* give an explanation for. One of the theories that religion has stuck around for as long as it has, is that it is a 'meme'; sort of a custom for a tribe or group, much like a genetic variation for a lifeform. If those tribes with those particular social customs (sexual cannibalism, using tools, praying to god - and another meme that works with the morality debate - morality!) if those tribes wind up being successful, those social traits will get passed on to their ancestors. Not all memes or genetic traits are useful however.
As for a 'million and one' things in everyday life? That's an absurd exaggeration.
Then how could you say anything that has been *scientificly* proven be true. Some thing were proven true by science has been proven right has been reproven wrong. For ex. How Albert Einstein proved whats hin name that (I forget the guys name) That stars move towards the light. When before it was thought it was common sense that light doesn't aflict the course of stars.
Ugh, what a nightmare. Yes. Theories get made, some of them stand the test of time, others fall apart when we further our knowledge of the universe and how it works. The good theories that are considered to be 'right' or correct, are the ones that we have now. Science corrects itself though. If the big bang theory is completely flawed & it's not the right explanation, it will be replaced with something that makes more sense, as we acquire more knowledge. The 'truth' of science, is what we know about things *now*. It can always change, when provided with new evidence - but that's the truth in it. Again - could there be a god? It's possible... but given the fact that we don't have proof for it, it's also highly improbable - and that's where the arrival at atheism comes from.
[quote]If something was refuted,then obviously the proof was faulty.
Exactly so anything right now that was proven right or wrong can be refuted later on (by more experiments). So why would I believe some of these *facts*.
[quote]Could you please use better grammar. I can barely understand you.
If you can barely understand me then theres something wrong in your head.
Exactly so anything right now that was proven right or wrong can be refuted later on (by more experiments). So why would I believe some of these *facts*.
Because they're far more valid and credible than religion. Read what HiddenDistance said to your (almost unreadable) comment:
Ugh, what a nightmare. Yes. Theories get made, some of them stand the test of time, others fall apart when we further our knowledge of the universe and how it works. The good theories that are considered to be 'right' or correct, are the ones that we have now. Science corrects itself though. If the big bang theory is completely flawed & it's not the right explanation, it will be replaced with something that makes more sense, as we acquire more knowledge. The 'truth' of science, is what we know about things *now*. It can always change, when provided with new evidence - but that's the truth in it. Again - could there be a god? It's possible... but given the fact that we don't have proof for it, it's also highly improbable - and that's where the arrival at atheism comes from.
The man speaks the truth!
-------
If you can barely understand me then theres something wrong in your head.
Actually, if you CAN understand this:
Then how could you say anything that has been *scientificly* proven be true. Some thing were proven true by science has been proven right has been reproven wrong. For ex. How Albert Einstein proved whats hin name that (I forget the guys name) That stars move towards the light. When before it was thought it was common sense that light doesn't aflict the course of stars.
then you have something wrong in your head.
The Big Bang is hundreds of times more valid than creationism - actually read Genesis and then read the Big Bang theory. You'll notice the difference if you understand the science behind the Big Bang.
Again-could there be a god? It's possible... but given the fact that we don't have proof for it,
/We do have proof it's that some people just don't believe the proof.(There are some willing to argue over the *proof*).
The *truth* about science is that we know about things *now*.
/Let me rephrase that. The truth about science is that we THINK (not know because the things we think we know or true can be refuted)we know know about things for now.
/We do have proof it's that some people just don't believe the proof.
Where's the proof? And the Bible doesn't count. It proves nothing except the stupidity of people 2,000 years ago, and that there were some good stories back then. I see the Bible as a fable collection, minus the nonhuman protagonists.
