Whats the difference between creation and evolution?

[Saint Marcus]

Belief in God is unscientific, in the sense that it is impossible, thorugh the scientific method, to come up with any sort of evidence for or against

of course that's the case. but there are various other things that we take for granted, yet cannot proof. All things regarding ethics for that matter.

[Jack_www]

Well I think we can prove that God exists, but not necessaryly thourgh scientific means. I would look at like trying to prove a person exists or not. I mean things you could look for is things the person has done, people the person talked to, people who have seen the person. All though you could not do all those things with God, but I do believe that you can prove the He exists. Weather or not you accept the proof or not is anther matter. FOr instant the Bible. I know many here dont believe it, so would not accept it as proof that God exists.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


yes. what are your arguments for it?

I believe science corresponds with the belief in no god.

An existentialists, usually accept the fact that this is the only life there is, and thus accept the fact that they must live every day of their life to its fullest.

Jack:

Well I think we can prove that God exists, but not necessaryly thourgh scientific means.

Prove it! You cannot prove that god exists. That statement itself is incorrect.

I would look at like trying to prove a person exists or not.

Purely irrelevant. Whether a person exists or not is simple. But you cannot prove god, and I will make one concession you cannot disprove god either. However I go with my feelings that there is no god.

All though you could not do all those things with God, but I do believe that you can prove the He exists.

Prove it. Prove that he exists. You can't. I am sorry but that is another assumptionary statement.

Weather or not you accept the proof or not is anther matter. FOr instant the Bible.

Fact 1) The bible was written by man.

Fact 2) The bible doesn't prove anything.

Fact 3) The bible thusly isn't proof.

I know many here dont believe it, so would not accept it as proof that God exists.

Fact 4) You cannot prove that god exists either way.

Finally, Jack, your statements are exactly what fundamentalists say. "god is there because he has to be" is purely assumptionary.

Actually Mark may be right, I might be more of a weak atheist rather than a strong one, as I really don't care about whether god exists of not. But when questioned I maintain god does not exist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
An atheist rejects that God(s) exists. He believes there is no God. An agnost is just not sure.

Wrong-o. As Loinburger has explained to me, Atheists are anyone who do not believe in God, including Agnostics. Now, there are soft Atheists (Agnostics) and hard Athiests (Reject God totally), but all are Atheists.

For the purposes of social identification with a group, however, it is most convenient to separate Agnostics from hard Atheists, otherwise labeling oneself Atheist will induce the erroneous assumption that one believes there is no God.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Fez


I believe science corresponds with the belief in no god.

An existentialists, usually accept the fact that this is the only life there is, and thus accept the fact that they must live every day of their life to its fullest.

Jack:



Prove it! You cannot prove that god exists. That statement itself is incorrect.



Purely irrelevant. Whether a person exists or not is simple. But you cannot prove god, and I will make one concession you cannot disprove god either. However I go with my feelings that there is no god.



Prove it. Prove that he exists. You can't. I am sorry but that is another assumptionary statement.



Fact 1) The bible was written by man.

Fact 2) The bible doesn't prove anything.

Fact 3) The bible thusly isn't proof.



Fact 4) You cannot prove that god exists either way.

Finally, Jack, your statements are exactly what fundamentalists say. "god is there because he has to be" is purely assumptionary.

Actually Mark may be right, I might be more of a weak atheist rather than a strong one, as I really don't care about whether god exists of not. But when questioned I maintain god does not exist.

Fez you missed the whole point of my post. I was not trying to prove God exists, I was trying to say that you can prove that he exits or does not exists the way you would prove if a person existed or not.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Well I think we can prove that God exists, but not necessaryly thourgh scientific means.

Well then, what better ways to "prove" anything are there?

I would look at like trying to prove a person exists or not. I mean things you could look for is things the person has done, people the person talked to, people who have seen the person. All though you could not do all those things with God, but I do believe that you can prove the He exists.

How??

Weather or not you accept the proof or not is anther matter. FOr instant the Bible. I know many here dont believe it, so would not accept it as proof that God exists.

The Bible is a book, one that contains much mythological and other improbable or erroneous happenings. If we can take the Bible as proof of God's existence, then perhaps Lord of the Ring proves that Frodo exists?

[Boris Godunov]

Or better yet, the Illiad is proof of the existence of Athena, Mars and Zeus!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jack_www

Fez you missed the whole point of my post. I was not trying to prove God exists, I was trying to say that you can prove that he exits or does not exists the way you would prove if a person existed or not.

Huh?

Can you say that again, I sorta lost you.

If I caught this right, you are basically repeating what I said.

But you must catch this clearly I said I BELIEVE there is no god. Can I prove it? No. Can somebody else disprove my beliefs? No they cannot. I am just going with my feelings.

[ranskaldan]

Boris:

Well-said.

Gotta watch Gladiator again to learn more about Roman history.

[Urban Ranger]

Mark,

Why are you baiting Fez?


Boris,

You buffoon. How can you put Zeus and Mars together? You either use Zeus or Ares, or Jupiter with Mars.

[Boris Godunov]

It's all explained in the Good Book. If you believe differently, you are damned.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I would look at like trying to prove a person exists or not. I mean things you could look for is things the person has done, people the person talked to, people who have seen the person. All though you could not do all those things with God, but I do believe that you can prove the He exists.

That seems to be implausible, because while you can directly attribute certain actions to a person, this cannot be said of YHWH.

Originally posted by Jack_www
FOr instant the Bible. I know many here dont believe it, so would not accept it as proof that God exists.

If the bible proves YHWH, do the holy books of Hinduism prove Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Wrong-o. As Loinburger has explained to me, Atheists are anyone who do not believe in God, including Agnostics. Now, there are soft Atheists (Agnostics) and hard Athiests (Reject God totally), but all are Atheists.

I can't agree with that.

Agnostic is generally uses to decribe somebody who cannot make up his mind - a fence-sitter, as it were. As far as I can see, it is just an evasion.

As for atheists, there are many "sub-classes" (for want of a better decription), ranging from those who don't believe simply because they haven't heard of such-and-such a diety to those who don't believe based on philosophical grounds. Among the latter group, there are Weak (Negative) Atheists and Strong (Positive) Atheists. Weak Atheists are those who hold that there are no good reasons to belief in the existence of a deity (or a group of deities) while Strong Atheists are those who hold that there are good reasons to believe that there are no gods - in particular the Judeo-Christianity one.

[Odin]

I really get ticked off when the mislead laymen say we are the point of evolution. Evolution has no defined path. it works in any way to keep organisms reproducing themselves. Eye, heads, brains,if they get in the way they will be selected against. Also, "primitive" organisms arent inferior, no species is superior to another. Bacteria may be simple structurally, but they are highly complex metabolically (think of the ones that live off sulfur in hot springs and hydrothermal vents.). Many protists, like Paramecium and Euglena are single celled, but each single cell is highly complex internally. Our Anthropocentric views must be cast aside in search of knowlege. We are but just one leaf on the Tree of Life.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I can't agree with that.

Agnostic is generally uses to decribe somebody who cannot make up his mind - a fence-sitter, as it were. As far as I can see, it is just an evasion.

An Agnostic is still and Atheist, though. Being a fence-sitter means you don't believe in God (or don't disbelieve). That makes one the opposite a theist, which is someone who believes in God. Which means one is an atheist.

And agnostic "fence sitting" isn't as weak as some people tend to think. I'm pretty firm in my Agnosticism, and don't see it as ever wavering from the position I am at now.