Do you believe in god?

[costargh]

I'll take one out of your book. =P
What you imply from my posts is entirely up to you.

I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.

[BA22]

Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety

[brendan]

I'm thinking something has to have knocked it into balance. So there should be a creator who designed and planned all these and made sure they are in equilibrium. I also suspect that no one would be able to explain the existence of all these with convincing scientific theory that are logical and there has to be a satisfying explanation. The most logical one that has existed after thousands of years of wondering and researches is still God, in my opinion. I know Brendan did say that you shouldn't just assume that there is a God since there are no alternative explanations, but I think it's the only thing that can justify our existence.

Your argument is not at all logical at all, the hole in that argument is big enough for me to drive a truck through. Not too long ago there did not exist a scientific explanation for lightning, but was that therefore an "act of god"?  Just because a scientific theory cannot currently be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods.

[brendan]

I'll take one out of your book. =P
What you imply from my posts is entirely up to you.

I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.

NO - I'm ASKING YOU what you are implying?? Were you referring to my post or not?

[costargh]

Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety

The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.

Not too long ago there did not exist a scientific explanation for lightning, but was that therefore an "act of god"?

Good point.


Yes. Your post asking for evidence

[BA22]

yeh, a theory well supported by objective, empirical evidence

[costargh]

Yes but if no one was there to observe at the start of life (presuming that everything has to begin from somewhere) then the theory is based on evolution as we see it today or in the recent past (even thousands of years ago, still no difference) ) because we are talking about the start of creation, not the evolution.

[brendan]

I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.

Yes. Your post asking for evidence

No, she made the claim so the onus is on her to prove her claim. There is no hypocrisy at all.

[brendan]

Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety

The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.

So what?

[costargh]

Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety

The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.

So what?

The quote is...

Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution...

My quote is

The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.

So what do you mean...

So what?

[brendan]

Nvm BA22 said it well:

yeh, a theory well supported by objective, empirical evidence

[sheepz]

Brendan, what type of evidence can I provide? Seriously, you want me to ask God to send you an e-mail saying he is the creator of the world? As costargh said, you can't provide me with real, convincing evidence that God doesn't exist too.

And why can't theories exist alongside with God? I still believe that God dictates when the lightning strike. It is just that since humans are curious and some don't believe in God, they turn to science and come up with theories and explanations, that God already knew and used when he created lightning. So even if theories ARE supported by evidence, that doesn't prove that there isn't a God.

[costargh]

But it has not been proven in the sense that it is an explanation for the the creation of existance, this it is still a theory.

[ninwa]

That doesn't prove that there IS a God, either. Nor does it prove that there is only one God, etc.

[costargh]

Maybe God is the science?