Seems like one of those things that scientist will say years form now was totally wrong and how could we buy it for so long it was so wrong? What happens before a big gang? There must be sometihng out there outside of a big bang, so how is it real!

Even now today our most smartest scientist say that a big gang is a just given, it's a fact and they dont stop and think hey, what if...? Why do you think they never say wait a minute? Is this real.

There is absolutely NO doubt there was a Big Bang. We now know approximately when and where it happened. We can tell because the universe is expanding in the direction opposite the blast. We can also date stars by the color they appear. We know "this" universe is about 13.5 billion years old and that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

What scientists are unsure about is what caused the Big Bang and if it was the only Big Bang and the only universe. There is a lot we don't know, but at least we're trying to figure it out instead of giving up and blaming it on god or gods.

Wait wait.....are we talking about a big bang or a big gang? The first two posts are confusing.

"Even now today..."

"..our most smartest scientist..."

"...say that a big gang..."

lol

A big gang bang perhaps?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What scientists are unsure about is what caused
> the Big Bang and if it was the only Big Bang and
> the only universe. There is a lot we don't know,
> but at least we're trying to figure it out instead
> of giving up and blaming it on god or gods.

The OP didn't mention god or religion of any sort.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is absolutely NO doubt there was a Big Bang.
> We now know approximately when and where it
> happened. We can tell because the universe is
> expanding in the direction opposite the blast.



Stoop right there. Now can you tell me what was outside of the big bang before it banged? it the big bang was like a tiny little ball and then it burst, then there must be something outside of the ball before it burst, so what was that thing? and what is outside the end of the universe anyway!!?

How can the big bang be real if there was no one there to see it happen?

jungle jim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is absolutely NO doubt there was a Big
> Bang.
> > We now know approximately when and where it
> > happened. We can tell because the universe is
> > expanding in the direction opposite the blast.
>
>
>
> Stoop right there. Now can you tell me what was
> outside of the big bang before it banged? it the
> big bang was like a tiny little ball and then it
> burst, then there must be something outside of the
> ball before it burst, so what was that thing? and
> what is outside the end of the universe anyway!!?

Fascinating, man... But put down the bong before you do any damage.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The OP didn't mention god or religion of any sort.


True, but that's the usual alternative explanation, which is why I mentioned it.

Okay... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jungle jim Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Numbers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is absolutely NO doubt there was a Big
> > Bang.
> > > We now know approximately when and where it
> > > happened. We can tell because the universe is
> > > expanding in the direction opposite the
> blast.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stoop right there. Now can you tell me what was
> > outside of the big bang before it banged? it
> the
> > big bang was like a tiny little ball and then
> it
> > burst, then there must be something outside of
> the
> > ball before it burst, so what was that thing?
> and
> > what is outside the end of the universe
> anyway!!?
>
> Fascinating, man... But put down the bong before
> you do any damage.


No, seriously. I'm a black man. I'm married with four kids and a mortgage. I never touched a drug in my life. That is a legitimate question: if you imagine the universe before the big bang as a tiny little ball floating somewhere....then what was "outside" of this universe, before it expanded? Was it just space? I thought all of space came from the big bang. So what was outside of the universe before then?

no, seriously Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No, seriously. I'm a black man. I'm married with
> four kids and a mortgage. I never touched a drug
> in my life. That is a legitimate question: if you
> imagine the universe before the big bang as a tiny
> little ball floating somewhere....then what was
> "outside" of this universe, before it expanded?
> Was it just space? I thought all of space came
> from the big bang. So what was outside of the
> universe before then?


Sure Misery. Whatever you say.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What scientists are unsure about is what caused
> the Big Bang and if it was the only Big Bang and
> the only universe. There is a lot we don't know,
> but at least we're trying to figure it out instead
> of giving up and blaming it on god or gods.

You arent really trying to figure it out if you dont even allow for the possibility of a God. Automatically discounting that isnt searching for the truth its just trying to disprove something. Really trying to figure it out would allow for that possibility and not start with a preconceived notion that you already know something youre just assuming.

The color of a star alone doesn't tell us the star's age. Color tells us how hot the star is...

Signatures are for fags

Then there are black holes...

Stay tuned for my new album "Tune in" available on iTunes this summer

Yes, and Its my favorite show! I just really hope that Leanord and Penny will get married at the end!

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You arent really trying to figure it out if you
> dont even allow for the possibility of a God.
> Automatically discounting that isnt searching for
> the truth its just trying to disprove something.

Why would you spend time and money researching something that has no evidence to support it to begin with? First, you need a theory. Then you begin research to prove or disprove it. If you have a theory involving a God or gods, you have to provide at least some small shred of evidence. So far, no one has found any.


> Really trying to figure it out would allow for
> that possibility and not start with a preconceived
> notion that you already know something youre just
> assuming.

People have been searching for evidence of God for thousands of years. Still nothing. If one day, there is even a hint of it, I'll be all ears. Until then, why even consider the notion?

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You arent really trying to figure it out if you
> dont even allow for the possibility of a God.
> Automatically discounting that isnt searching for
> the truth its just trying to disprove something.

The concept of an imaginary all-powerful being is the least likely answer to any scientific question, so it is the very first thing you rule out.

In addition, a god is a supernatural being, which means it is "beyond nature" and therefore not something that can be scientifically tested. Once you go down the road of attributing an observation to an act of god you have, by definition, turned your back on science.

> Really trying to figure it out would allow for
> that possibility and not start with a preconceived
> notion that you already know something youre just
> assuming.

The concept of a supernatural being cannot be proved; it is itself a preconceived notion. That's why it's called "faith" and not "science".

As to the OP's question, the concept of the Big Bang is the best available model of the universe right now, based on observations. You are correct when you say scientists may come up with a better model someday: that's what science is all about, discarding obsolete ideas and updating models with new ones.

Unlike religion, which makes stuff up based on imagination and then never admits when it is wrong. Like a child who refuses to stop believing in Santa Claus long after his logical-minded peers figured out it must be incorrect.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would you spend time and money researching
> something that has no evidence to support it to
> begin with? First, you need a theory. Then you
> begin research to prove or disprove it. If you
> have a theory involving a God or gods, you have to
> provide at least some small shred of evidence. So
> far, no one has found any.

Why wouldnt you allow for every possible theory and let the evidence you find lead you to your conclusion instead of starting with a research bias?

You cant prove there isnt a god, if you cant prove that without a doubt then its a possibility that should be included. The goal is supposedly to find the real answer, not to disprove religion.


> People have been searching for evidence of God for
> thousands of years. Still nothing. If one day,
> there is even a hint of it, I'll be all ears.
> Until then, why even consider the notion?

Nothing in your opinion. Real science doesnt exclude things because of ideology, it lets the findings determine what the conclusion will be. Unbiased research is supposed to be exactly that, excluding that off the bat is already biasing the results of anything thats found. Trying to say we understand the universe when we can barely get off the Earth is arrogant and nothing more than hubris, all we have is educated guesses at the small fraction of the universe we know about. We barely know anything about our own galaxy much less the universe.

You consider it because its a possible, excluding it is biased work thats just trying to disprove something instead of being concerned about what the actual truth is. You can explain anything away when you start at a conclusion and work backwards, it doesnt mean its factually correct.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The concept of an imaginary all-powerful being is
> the least likely answer to any scientific
> question, so it is the very first thing you rule
> out.

Thats not being concerned with what the real answer is, thats just trying to prove yourself right and making facts fit.

> In addition, a god is a supernatural being, which
> means it is "beyond nature" and therefore not
> something that can be scientifically tested. Once
> you go down the road of attributing an observation
> to an act of god you have, by definition, turned
> your back on science.

Not at all, science is supposed to be about finding the truth and what really happened. If thats what really happened thats what really happened. Its not science when you start making things up because you dont like the answer.

Theres far more we cant explain than we could even try to explain, trying to say that cant be possible isnt science its just agenda based research.


> The concept of a supernatural being cannot be
> proved; it is itself a preconceived notion. That's
> why it's called "faith" and not "science".

In your opinion it cant be proved, it cant be disproved either meaning its possible. You dont rule out possibilities with no evidence when you actually want to know the truth.


> Unlike religion, which makes stuff up based on
> imagination and then never admits when it is
> wrong. Like a child who refuses to stop believing
> in Santa Claus long after his logical-minded peers
> figured out it must be incorrect.

Nothing more than your opinion which you are stating as fact.

Well, fine then. The universe was created by Santa Claus.

That's my story, and if you think I'm wrong then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, fine then. The universe was created by Santa
> Claus.
>
> That's my story, and if you think I'm wrong then
> that's just, like, your opinion, man.


That was a horribly analogy to begin with since you stop believing in Santa because it was your Parents and they come clean about it. Theres definitive proof it was them. Show me the proof for the universe that we apparently know everything about or share how youve managed to live since the earth was created since you seem to know everything thats happened on it.

But if you want to act like a child about it and just immediately go to absurd comments out of anger because you just want science to be used to confirm your own beliefs instead of actually let facts guide what it finds by all means go ahead.

.
Attachments:

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, fine then. The universe was created by Santa
> Claus.
>
> That's my story, and if you think I'm wrong then
> that's just, like, your opinion, man.


There is no amount of evidence that would EVER convince Liberal Logic 26. Typical circular logic. He is a perfect example of what's wrong with religion.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, fine then. The universe was created by
> Santa
> > Claus.
> >
> > That's my story, and if you think I'm wrong
> then
> > that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>
>
> There is no amount of evidence that would EVER
> convince Liberal Logic 26. Typical circular logic.
> He is a perfect example of what's wrong with
> religion.


But aren't all you guys neo-con conservative log cabin republicans? You should be on the pro-God side, you know. Don't know your own party line...

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was a horribly analogy to begin with since
> you stop believing in Santa because it was your
> Parents and they come clean about it.

Other way around, I'm afraid.

My parents told me there was a god and a Santa Claus.

Later they "came clean" and told me there's no god, but they didn't stop believing in Santa. I still believe that if I don't believe in Santa that I will go to Christmas Hell and get underwear as a gift everyday for all eternity.

If only my parents has "come clean" about that damn Santa...

Religion explans things that we don't understand
The more we understand the less we need religion.

The Big Bang is a widely uncontested scientific fact. Almost all reputable scientists believe in it. As for what caused it, I think your belief or lack of belief colors your view point. If you're an atheist, you're going to believe one thing. If you're theistic, like I am, you're going to believe something else.
By and large, it's circular logic. By the way, the argument equating Santa Claus with God is fallacious. It only applies if you believe in the traditional Christian dogma of Heaven and Hell, which I don't.

Also, the traditional dogma of "saved through belief" is nonsense. If you murder people, you're not going to be saved, regardless of how deeply you believe in God/Jesus. You're saved through your actions.

Science and religion are not incompatible. You can use one to support the other, and Issac Newton did on a regular basis. The issue is that there are some far-right wackos who believe that evolution is demonstrably wrong, the Earth is 6000 years old, and that you can only be saved through belief, not action.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Understanding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion explans things that we don't understand
> The more we understand the less we need religion.

Not particularly. I would argue the inverse is true. The more we understand, the more we realize how ridiculously complex this universe is. To me, that strengthens the argument for God.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science and religion are not incompatible.

I actually agree with this. Believing in some sort of supernatural being or afterlife is your own personal business, and as long as you keep it seperate and don't fall back on it whenever you can't explain what you observe in the physical world. Religion is not a substitute for science.

> You can
> use one to support the other, and Issac Newton did
> on a regular basis.

No, Issac Newton was a genius who was also human enough to get mixed up in mystical nonsense. Einstein was also religious, and that led him to be critical about new ideas like quantum mechanics based on personal prejudice, instead of staying neutral and letting experimentation prove or disprove it.

Those guys were brilliant but their beliefs do not necessarily contribute to their greatness, and one could argue that it hindered it.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Understanding Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Religion explans things that we don't understand
>
> > The more we understand the less we need
> religion.
>
> Not particularly. I would argue the inverse is
> true. The more we understand, the more we realize
> how ridiculously complex this universe is. To me,
> that strengthens the argument for God.


Which proves what I said
You don't understand so must be gods doing.....
If it works for...... Sad really but keep praying

Understanding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which proves what I said
> You don't understand so must be gods doing.....
> If it works for...... Sad really but keep praying

Whatever you want to believe. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Einstein was also religious,

He was definitely NOT religious. He has publicly and privately stated he does NOT believe in God. He once stated something about some weird matter and thought nonsense, but not and gods like we all know and love.

A bit simplistic, but pretty accurate.

_____________
We are all Eesh.
Attachments:

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That was a horribly analogy to begin with since
> > you stop believing in Santa because it was your
> > Parents and they come clean about it.
>
> Other way around, I'm afraid.
>
> My parents told me there was a god and a Santa
> Claus.
>
> Later they "came clean" and told me there's no
> god, but they didn't stop believing in Santa. I
> still believe that if I don't believe in Santa
> that I will go to Christmas Hell and get underwear
> as a gift everyday for all eternity.
>
> If only my parents has "come clean" about that
> damn Santa...

This is the childish behavior you resort too when someone calls you on your bullshit that you arent interested in finding the truth?

Go on with the temper tantrum mental midget. You and numbers both crumbled as soon as you were called on your bullshit stating opinions as fact. I never once said what the answer is, only that a real scientist would leave the possibility open. Dismissing it from the start isnt science, its how can we disprove religion.

You may commence with the bullshit now.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bit simplistic, but pretty accurate.


Youre wasting your time. They have no defense for biased science based off atheism or the fact that we dont know a single thing about the universe yet theyre stating their opinions about it and its creation as fact. People that crumble that quickly arent capable of logical thought. They have no interest in trying to figure out what the truth is, they just want confirmation that theres no god so they dont think theyve made a mistake.

Your picture sums it up pretty nicely though. Its funny how a god is so far fetched but the idea that everything was created out of nothing for no reason what so ever is somehow completely reasonable.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Youre wasting your time. They have no defense for
> biased science based off atheism or the fact that
> we dont know a single thing about the universe yet
> theyre stating their opinions about it and its
> creation as fact. People that crumble that
> quickly arent capable of logical thought. They
> have no interest in trying to figure out what the
> truth is, they just want confirmation that theres
> no god so they dont think theyve made a mistake.
>
>
> Your picture sums it up pretty nicely though. Its
> funny how a god is so far fetched but the idea
> that everything was created out of nothing for no
> reason what so ever is somehow completely
> reasonable.

Basically, their whole argument revolves around the idea that most evidence of God is anecdotal and that science reveals truth. I agree that science reveals truth, but I don't agree with the idea that most evidence of God is anecdotal.

I don't believe in intelligent design (I believe in theistic evolution), though I definitely see the reason for believing in it. Gravity has a mathematical value of roughly 6.67 x 10^-11. If you were to take it out to forty places and make it 6.68, nothing would exist. The universe would not have been capable of forming.

I'm not a Bible thumper; I don't care whether or not you believe in God. However, I don't want people going around and attacking me on a personal level because I don't believe in what they do, as some atheists do. I would also say that most scientists are atheists. Not so much because of what they discovered, but because the people who go into science and get a PhD tend to be atheists.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go on with the temper tantrum mental midget. You
> and numbers both crumbled as soon as you were
> called on your bullshit stating opinions as fact.
> I never once said what the answer is, only that a
> real scientist would leave the possibility open.
> Dismissing it from the start isnt science, its how
> can we disprove religion.

Sir Roger Penrose is a world renowned physicist. He's an avowed atheist, but he's objective. He has said on numerous occasions that he feels as though the universe is not random, and there something much deeper about the universe.

As I said in my last post, the majority of PhDs in science tend to be atheists. When you have a large group of atheists, some of them are going to take stances that attack religion as being a fairy tale. I think this has been helped along by the fact that several notable evangelists, as well as elements of the Roman Catholic Church, have rejected science outright for decades, clinging to the falsehoods of Biblical literalism.

Literalism is not correct. The world was clearly not created in 6 calendar days.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go on with the temper tantrum mental midget. You
> and numbers both crumbled as soon as you were
> called on your bullshit stating opinions as fact.
> I never once said what the answer is, only that a
> real scientist would leave the possibility open.
> Dismissing it from the start isnt science, its how
> can we disprove religion.

Nobody needs to "disprove religion". It's like trying to prove that there are no unicorns.

By the way, "bullshit" is a curse word, and I'm pretty sure religious people aren't supposed to curse like that. Maybe you should post less and pray more.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As I said in my last post, the majority of PhDs in
> science tend to be atheists. When you have a large
> group of atheists, some of them are going to take
> stances that attack religion as being a fairy
> tale. I think this has been helped along by the
> fact that several notable evangelists, as well as
> elements of the Roman Catholic Church, have
> rejected science outright for decades, clinging to
> the falsehoods of Biblical literalism.

Which is the problem with science for this. Its not science if your starting out with "facts" that you dont have the first clue to the answer too. Real science would just find things out as they go and be guided by that. If you start out with an agenda that youre going to disprove religion you arent searching for truth youre looking for things to confirm your beliefs and your work is already flawed and biased. It really shouldnt be that hard to be objective even if you dont believe in a god though atheists tend to be angry people.

No matter how you slice it though confirmation bias isnt science. Its even more absurd when its about an issue like the creation of the universe which we dont know much about. Like I said above we can barely get off the earth and barely know about our galaxy, but someone we have it all figured out? I think not. Pretending to have the answers is arrogant at best or just being an outright fraud.

It should be pretty obvious that the universe isnt random. Too many coincidences had to happen to create it and more specifically us on earth, things that are random result in chaos not a massive orderly universe like the one we have. If things some how appeared out of no where to create the universe for no reason at all why isnt that happening over and over again? A truly random universe would have destroyed itself and recreated itself several times over by now since random is exactly that

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Go on with the temper tantrum mental midget.
> You
> > and numbers both crumbled as soon as you were
> > called on your bullshit stating opinions as
> fact.
> > I never once said what the answer is, only that
> a
> > real scientist would leave the possibility open.
>
> > Dismissing it from the start isnt science, its
> how
> > can we disprove religion.
>
> Nobody needs to "disprove religion". It's like
> trying to prove that there are no unicorns.
>
> By the way, "bullshit" is a curse word, and I'm
> pretty sure religious people aren't supposed to
> curse like that. Maybe you should post less and
> pray more.

Let me know when you have something intelligent to contribute. Its obvious you just want science to be agenda driven to validate your own beliefs. The best part about all of this though is the irony of you professing science to be king but you wanting it perverted with your own biases destroying its credibility and biasing its findings.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody needs to "disprove religion". It's like
> trying to prove that there are no unicorns.

Religions are false, and created by men. Most who purport to believe in the Bible do not. I have been just as at fault as many others have.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is the problem with science for this. Its
> not science if your starting out with "facts" that
> you dont have the first clue to the answer too.
> Real science would just find things out as they go
> and be guided by that. If you start out with an
> agenda that youre going to disprove religion you
> arent searching for truth youre looking for things
> to confirm your beliefs and your work is already
> flawed and biased. It really shouldnt be that
> hard to be objective even if you dont believe in a
> god though atheists tend to be angry people.
>
> No matter how you slice it though confirmation
> bias isnt science. Its even more absurd when its
> about an issue like the creation of the universe
> which we dont know much about. Like I said above
> we can barely get off the earth and barely know
> about our galaxy, but someone we have it all
> figured out? I think not. Pretending to have the
> answers is arrogant at best or just being an
> outright fraud.
>
> It should be pretty obvious that the universe isnt
> random. Too many coincidences had to happen to
> create it and more specifically us on earth,
> things that are random result in chaos not a
> massive orderly universe like the one we have. If
> things some how appeared out of no where to create
> the universe for no reason at all why isnt that
> happening over and over again? A truly random
> universe would have destroyed itself and recreated
> itself several times over by now since random is
> exactly that

I'd like to send you an email, so please contact me through the email in my profile.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Yeah really, check your PMs Young Curmudgeon.

Removed

_____________
We are all Eesh.

The argument that science is biased by not including religion is false, because religion has been included. Attempts to combine or intertwine science and religion have been tried since the beginning of time.

No scientist starts with "Well we can rule out Gods and religions." They do just as you have asked and consider it from the beginning. The result is religion being scientifically shown to have no real factor at all.


A simple example would be:

Scientists researching the beginning of time / big bang etc...start with many things. They can not start with everything or they would never get anywhere.

So, lets start with a selection and see where science would go...the following list would be included or excluded using the scientific process.


1. Unicorns
2. Atoms
3. Gods
4. Amebas
5. Spaghetti monster
6. Fossils

Scientists would quickly see results related to our universe and creation with -

2. Atoms
4. Amebas
6. Fossils

While disregarding (Not by choice, but by logical process) -

1. Unicorns
3. Gods
5. Spaghetti monster

And the scientists would continue working from there, adding and eliminating possibilities as they learn more.

So, you can argue that IF in further research Unicorns, Gods and Spaghetti monsters somehow prove to be real, then at that time they could be reconsidered WITH the information already learned.

You can NOT argue they are factors at this time at all.

Add to that - Unicorns, Gods and Spaghetti monsters have been proven to not exist what so ever at this time - that is a fact.


Using the argument that one can not prove something does not exist, EQUALS IT EXISTS is just silly and childish. This argument could be applied to anything a person could imagine - if you can not prove it does not exist, by your logic, means it does exist.

So, if someone says there is a etiungtin at the center of a yyuunnihu that created everything and controls everything. This statement would be FACT because no one can prove a "etiungtin" and "yyuunnihu" do not exist.

When someone says that an ameba has been found to duplicate itself and produce new "life", which can be proven through fossil records and related directly to chemicals and atoms found in our universe. This statement can be proven through science - shown to our senses - repeated in our world and so on... (Do not take the "Atoms Amebas Fossils" thing literally, I was just using those as examples).


At this point in time, Gods and religion have been PROVEN not to exist at all - this is a fact and can not be argued otherwise.


You have to understand that I just typed all of the above and still try to believe in a higher power. It is not logical and can not be proven on any level to be true, but in my heart I hope a higher power does exist.

Very interesting. The only thing missing is any evidence science has that God has been proven to not exist.

Your statement that religion has been proven not to exist doesn't help your argument as it is perhaps the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this forum,which says a lot.

Have you noticed the places of worship you drive by every day? Religion most certainly exists,just like water and air.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2013 12:36PM by wrongg.

I should have said that religion, by all known human measures, has been proven, shown or found to not SCIENTIFICALLY exist.

Is it a BELIEF system? Yes, and exists on faith and hope (Like myself, I HOPE so much that there is a higher power), but I accept and realize as a logical person that there is no evidence at all to show existence.

enc4p Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should have said that religion, by all known
> human measures, has been proven, shown or found to
> not SCIENTIFICALLY exist.
>
> Is it a BELIEF system? Yes, and exists on faith
> and hope (Like myself, I HOPE so much that there
> is a higher power), but I accept and realize as a
> logical person that there is no evidence at all to
> show existence.


The religions invented by humans over the past 5,000 years probably don't exist. They are mythologies written during times when civilizations didn't have scientific means to answer questions about the existence of man and the universe.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very interesting. The only thing missing is any
> evidence science has that God has been proven to
> not exist.
>

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That makes no sense.

Whether it's "god", the 30 foot-tall spider that lives in my basement, or horoscope predictions.

You can't prove they DON'T exist because the premise implies that they do exist.

Anyone can make up anything.

Lets ask God himself if he exists.

God, do you exist?

God?

GOD!!!!

Yoo Hoo!

No one knows for sure.