I have no objection to theism, but the provision of opinion as fact in an area designed specfically for rational argument backed up by empirical evidence is no place for baseless assertions.
Saying that ''god exists'' without proving god exists is trolling. Of course the obvious counter argument is that people who say that ''god doesn't exist'' are also trolls. Not so. The fact that god cannot be proven/disproven has been hammered on again and again in so many threads it's absurd. To blithely state ''god did it because god'' is so far beyond the realm of logic the only reasoining left is trolling. Unless we're willing to admit religious folk are irrational? Because irrationality would also explain such comments. Therefore the theist who has made the choice to post his ''god did it because god'' statement must choose. They are either irrational or a troll. The way I see it, calling them a troll is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Because the alternative is that they really are irrational.
This may be perceived to be too harsh or unproductive, as it would label so many users as trolls. However all they need to do to escape this title is to prove their statements are true. These forums are so full of statements of ''fact'' it is absurd. I think that if there was a change in user consciousness to the point where baseless assertions were considered either trolling or irrational, the WEPR forums would be far more conducive to good quality threads.
BUT there is also no proof! To make a theory, you need to have proofs. Otherwise the theory is invalid.
OK enough babbling someone please show me the proof of the big bang? i'm not mocking it just people are saying there's this proof but never once have i been presented with proof?
haha thanks for saying that, therefore i declare GOD a theory and you can't disprove it, and millions of people already accept it so by thinking the way you do God is a theory and can't be disproved, haha make your mind up man, what point are you trying to make?
Post above this.^
Scientific Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Maybe there is something to this "God did it"=Trolling.
Maybe there is something to this "God did it"=Trolling.
i'm simply fighting this that not every christian goes oh god is crying so it is raining, the modern christian believes that rain is formed from water droplets and condensation and all of that, but one this science and Christianity have are different beliefs for The big bang, god or exploding mass that came from somewhere, they say you can't prove it wrong for the theory of big bang but neither can god be proven wrong. this link is a piece of Pro god evidence - [url=http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm]
Forget the big bang theory. It has more scientific evidence than the God theory. The scientific theory may not have very much evidence, but at least it has more than the religious theory, which doesn't have any.
false flaming is negative, spamming can be something positive just a lot of it. here is my proof for god that i was asked for. [url=http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php]
1. cosmological radiation 2. the universe is still expanding
ok lets pretend that that was 100% true, who/what in science made the radiation, and made it explode? radiation can't make itself? i think trying to say anything against the general opinion like what i'm trying to say is considered spamming, i'm not repeating myself and providing multiple points so it's not spam and I've been quite positive and nice so not flaming either, just arguing.
OK enough babbling someone please show me the proof of the big bang? i'm not mocking it just people are saying there's this proof but never once have i been presented with proof?
Here you go. Explanation of the theory along with the evidence that supports it.
i'm simply fighting this that not every christian goes oh god is crying so it is raining, the modern christian believes that rain is formed from water droplets and condensation and all of that, but one this science and Christianity have are different beliefs for The big bang, god or exploding mass that came from somewhere, they say you can't prove it wrong for the theory of big bang but neither can god be proven wrong. this link is a piece of Pro god evidence - [url=http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm]
Before we knew what caused the rain the religious said "God did it" and fought against the notion that God wasn't the cause. Just as today religious people say "God did it" about things we still don't understand such as where the singularity came from.
There's no proof in your link for God. I recommend you stay away from those creationist sites there not healthy for you.
[url=http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word] how about this proves big bang to be a very non-efficient answer if you spend time reading this and still can answer the question of where the matter came from other than idk, then don't criticize my explanation, if you don't know what happened how can you know what didn't, this is where beliefs come in for we have no idea what really did. so believe in what you want to just don't say i'm wrong, saying there is no proof, ok i agree there is no proof but don't you dare say i'm wrong without knowing what is right, see what i'm getting at, IF YOU DON"T KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS WRONG? believe in what you want, it is your choice, but science only goes so far and then it is either - idk - GOD - or magic. there is no proof any wear.
ok lets pretend that that was 100% true, who/what in science made the radiation, and made it explode? radiation can't make itself? i think trying to say anything against the general opinion like what i'm trying to say is considered spamming, i'm not repeating myself and providing multiple points so it's not spam and I've been quite positive and nice so not flaming either, just arguing.
Yes, tthere is a lot of good and thought points in your armguments
Your best point is trying to prove one of hundreds of theroies wrong an one of tens of myths right
but science only goes so far and then it is either - idk - GOD - or magic. there is no proof any wear.
Only because we don't currently have the answers. If we just kept it "god or magic" then we whould still be beating stones together in rituals to the cave gods.... Science will one day be able to explain everything, as long as we don't keep biased idias sutch is "its god or magic"
Only because we don't currently have the answers. If we just kept it "god or magic" then we would still be beating stones together in rituals to the cave gods.... Science will one day be able to explain everything, as long as we don't keep biased ideas such is "its god or magic"
if they could prove me wrong then i will be the first person to admit that OK I'm wrong, i hope they further technology to a point that everything is explained, BUT until that day i feel that god TO ME is the most logical solution, i go with what seems most true you could say to me, I'm not biased i think science is awesome just that just because a scientist has a maybe possible answer atheist use it to disprove Christianity when all it does is prove to be a theory, god isn't a myth, myths can be proven wrong, like zues throwing lightning because we know what lightning is, someone said that Christians did the same, yes the Christan people but that was not faith, not the solid opinion that rain is god's tears just an explanation of events, but unlike mythology Christians didn't include that in their faith, there isn't stories in church about how god makes it rain just how in certain cases he made things like the universe. I hope science advances to that point, but until then i believe in GOD and his commandments.
