Trump the Man

[fishermccann]

Abraham.....The father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Because a person who is willing to murder their child because a voice told them to is someone the whole world should admire and follow. LOL

[fishermccann]

Ha Ha .....The reversed responsibility response, switching the burden of proof. I claim nothing is there , you claim there is, the burden of proof is on you to prove something is there , I can't prove a negative, that nothing is there. Atheists do not need faith. Science proves itself continuously...... Religion. The practice of training your mind to ignore evidence, logic and reason, while being able to believe in fairy tales based on faith alone.... and being proud of it rather than ashamed.

[fishermccann]

Faith means not wanting to know what is true....... F. Nietzsche...... Faith is believing what you know ain't so.... M.Twain

[Species8472]

Ha Ha .....The reversed responsibility response, switching the burden of proof. I claim nothing is there , you claim there is, the burden of proof is on you to prove something is there , I can't prove a negative, that nothing is there. Atheists do not need faith. Science proves itself continuously......

Actually I never claimed anything where the existence of God is concerned. Just had a good laugh at the arrogance going around on this thread.

For someone who claims to be so well read and believes science is the be all and end all you seem to have a rather poor understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method never proves anything regarding the veracity of a hypothesis, perhaps you are confusing it with the related but completely different field of mathematics. All science ever does is provide support for or disprove a hypothesis and/or occassionally a theory. Support is different than proof. The result is the hypothesis/theory is strengthened, amended and/or revised and/or rejected outright. Disproving something exists is far easier to do than to actually prove something exists - proving something exists beyond all doubt is actually impossible from a scientific perspective.

The burden of dis-proof/support always lies with both camps where science is concerned. So in the case of God your hypothesis is that he/she does not exist. The next step becomes conduct an experiment designed to provide evidence that supports your hypothesis. Conduct enough different experiments with repeatable results that support your hypothesis and it becomes a theory and if there is especially strong support it may even become a law but it will never be proven. The other side would do the same but with the hypothesis that God exists. Neither side ever proves anything - they only determine that the experiments conducted to date do not disprove their theory/hypothesis but instead support it (not prove it). A classic example is the theory of spontaneous generation. For a long time it was theorized that maggots spontaneously generated from nothing on rotten meat. Numerous experiments were conducted that supported this. Louis Pasteur did not agree so this required him to prove spontaneous generation did not exist (oh look at that he set out to dis-prove something or as you call it prove a negative). Louis Pasteur proposed a new hypothesis, designed an experiment and provided evidence for his hypothesis that disproved the existence of spontaneous generation and provided the basis for microbiology as we know it.

Your faith that science provides the evidence to conclude anything regarding God is lauhgable. Science proves nothing it just determines likely explanations. After more than 400 years of experimenting we still don't even fully understand gravity nevermind a concept as complicated as God. As far as i am aware there are no repeatable scientific experiments that have been designed and conducted by either side that support or disprove the existence of God. So all people whether they believe in God or not require faith. Hell even gravity requires faith as we have never proved it actually exists. We do however have enough support for the theory of gravity that if you drop a ball the amount of faith required is minimal to believe that it will drop.

So as I said before the debate becomes which side requires the most faith.

[terrym]

I am not a particularly religious man and I believe in the theory of evolution. Here is the problem, if everything evolves from a starting point be it a single cell micro organism whatever. The world around us then is the result of gazzilions of years of evolution. The earth and it's living things like plants and animals are all the result of an evolutionary process right? Most likely more of it out there we aren't advanced enough yet to find. So, if the universe is constantly evolving and changing ( think ice ages and thier effects on living things) there has to be a starting point to begin the process right? Who in this world can pinpoint and define a starting point? Big Bang? Something has to cause a bang. Science would support this. So, until someone can define what the beginning was I'm gonna believe it's unexplainable and some might call that a supreme being. Anybody who feels they can solve it, is full of krappp.

[fishermccann]

Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved. T. Minchin

[terrym]

None of which explains how the universe began.

[ninepointer]

None of which explains how the universe began.

I hear that one is solved pretty much every Saturday morning by those guys at the corner table in Tim Hortons

[terrym]

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last week myself

[Species8472]

Faith means not wanting to know what is true....... F. Nietzsche...... Faith is believing what you know ain't so.... M.Twain

Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved. T. Minchin

For someone who esteems science as the be all and end all why so many quotes from arts majors? Anecdotal one line quotes from a bunch of arts majors proves nothing.

The closest Webster's definition to any of these is:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There is a difference between no proof and denial of proof. As there is no scientific proof that God either exists or does not exist it would seem that faith is required for either belief according to Webster. As you seem hung up with science, why not see what scientists actually believe - wait a minute someone already did that. In 2009 Pew Research looked into this and determined that 51% of the polled scientists believed in God or some type of higher power, 41% did not believe and 7% did not know. So it seems the team you are trying to back is fairly evenly split - hardly compelling.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/

The one thing i will grant you is that disbelief in God is much higher among scientists than the general public but still nowhere near high enough to even suggest belief in God is illogical.

I have no problem with anyone believing God either exists or doesn't. Myself I'm in the don't know camp. What does irk me is someone like you who boldly proclaims the issue is settled and looks down on anyone who does not subscribe to your belief as ignorant or illogical. It seems you have placed fully half the scientific community in that category