God's Thread

[Zero Phoenix]

Some shows weren't interesting the first time around.

[quote name='Archerguy']since i'm a dumbfag in a term of science

let me answer this from the theology pov



1st:

God probably exist

we just don't know what its form is

Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christian, Jews) show it as a powerful creature that watch and protect us

Nature religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) show it as the leader of another deity

Ancient religion (animism, dynamism) show it as the "power" that surpass their power

Satanism show it as "Satan" (ah whatever this thing is)[/QUOTE]





All of which have little to do with the topic or the argument laid down before your own. You're simply posting for the sake of it.





[quote name='Archerguy']however there's counter-argument on this

You know how Christians and Jews describe their God?

the old man with white hair and white beard[/QUOTE]





Christians don't have a "picture" of God's image per se because His face is not described in the Bible. In fact God has stated that no man can see His face lest he die. God made very few exceptions in this regard. Moses could see the face of the Lord but Moses never described what God looked like. In addition to that, Jesus could of course see the face of God (because as the Son of God Jesus was also God Himself) but Jesus does not describe what God looks like either. The idea of God being an old white man with a long beard is a WESTERN construct.



Really, when it comes to matters as serious as this it helps if your research extended beyond your opinions. :-.-:





[quote name='Archerguy']It's pretty Similar to Zeus the leader of the Greek's Gods

meanwhile Zeus is actually Greek's version of Thor the leader of the Norse Gods[/QUOTE]



Thor was not the leader of the Norse gods. Odin was. Just because Thor and Zeus shared similar powers, that does not mean they shared similar roles. Odin is the leader of the Norse gods, not Thor. I tried to stay out of this [soon-to-be ridiculous discussion] but it would seem I cannot sit on the sidelines even if I want to. The lack of actual facts garnered through true research is shocking. Simply shocking. Here is a site that seems to be the rage nowadays. Perhaps you should visit it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin







[quote name=''[lexus'];93823']But yeah, no evidence for that, just a fun fantasy. So Ill argue either for agnosticism or atheism, cuz it is always fun to see believers explode and try to convince you how right they are because some musty old book says they are right.[/QUOTE]



I suppose if that's your only source of happiness it's no wonder I find you amusing. Amusing like a pet. I won't give you anything too daunting because I've pretty much pwned this discussion at another venue already. I also don't expect much from you [lexus] because really, you just can satisfy me but let me ask you a question. You say that believers are just following what some old book tells them to. How are atheists and agnostics any different? After all, all you're doing is believing what someone else wrote down, in a book, many, many years ago. Not only that but you can't prove anything in your science books is correct. I mean even if you weren't limited you wouldn't be able to. You're not the one doing the experiments and you're not the one doing the research. All you're doing is believing, placing your faith in someone else who claims to. Do you not see the fallacy of your ridiculous argument? No of course "you don't." Here. I have a ball. Perhaps you would like to bounce it.

 

[-lexus-]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']

I suppose if that's your only source of happiness it's no wonder I find you amusing. Amusing like a pet. I won't give you anything too daunting because I've pretty much pwned this discussion at another venue already. I also don't expect much from you [lexus] because really, you just can satisfy me but let me ask you a question. You say that believers are just following what some old book tells them to. How are atheists and agnostics any different? After all, all you're doing is believing what someone else wrote down, in a book, many, many years ago. Not only that but you can't prove anything in your science books is correct. I mean even if you weren't limited you wouldn't be able to. You're not the one doing the experiments and you're not the one doing the research. All you're doing is believing, placing your faith in someone else who claims to. Do you not see the fallacy of your ridiculous argument? No of course "you don't." Here. I have a ball. Perhaps you would like to bounce it.[/QUOTE]

If you cant tell the difference between having faith in fictional stories and scientific facts written down on paper, Im not gonna bother and explain it to you. It be like talking to a stone wall, well, in your case probably a reinforced concrete wall, so Im gonna pass on that.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

The [lexus] Play - Because who needs education in 2011?

[quote name=''[lexus'];94401']If you cant tell the difference between having faith in fictional stories and scientific facts written down on paper, Im not gonna bother and explain it to you. It be like talking to a stone wall, well, in your case probably a reinforced concrete wall, so Im gonna pass on that.[/QUOTE]





Ah, the classic [lexus] play. The one you used against Kaze and Noex. You know the play. Your opponent catches you on your bullshit, prove to the entire forum that you're incompetent, and you avoid the questions laid down to save face. I've gone from laughing at you to pitying you. Noex, get a look at this guy.



1) How do you know what is written down are scientific facts?

2) How do you know they are facts unless you verify them yourself?

3) If a dozen scientists claim to know something as fact and a dozen believers claim to know something as fact, how do you determine who is correct?



Bear in mind number 3 is a trick question because you can't. Given your, heh, "standing" you probably won't conduct any experiments on your own to verify whether the scientific findings laid before you are fact or fiction.

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']After all, all you're doing is believing what someone else wrote down, in a book, many, many years ago. Not only that but you can't prove anything in your science books is correct. I mean even if you weren't limited you wouldn't be able to. You're not the one doing the experiments and you're not the one doing the research. All you're doing is believing, placing your faith in someone else who claims to. Do you not see the fallacy of your ridiculous argument? No of course "you don't."[/QUOTE]I believe you already know this, but Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in deities. Counter-Atheism, on the other hand, is the believe that there is no deities.



People incline to atheism or non-theistic philosophies, because there are strong arguments that are backing them up more than that of theistic ones; the fact that theistic arguments are easily brought down.



Science is favoured by atheist because, it's the least thing they can label as accurate, if not absolute truth, of our being. And there's sure no dogma or force belief in absurd thing in Science.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Round One: FIGHT!

[quote name='Biomega']I believe you already know this, but Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in deities. Counter-Atheism, on the other hand, is the believe that there is no deities.[/QUOTE]



Potato, Potahto. Got it. :-.-:





[quote name='Biomega']People incline to atheism or non-theistic philosophies, because there are strong arguments that are backing them up more than that of theistic ones; the fact that theistic arguments are easily brought down.[/QUOTE]



Did I not just bring down most of the ridiculous non-theistic philosophies with a few keystrokes? It wasn't at all difficult.





[quote name='Biomega']Science is favoured by atheist because, it's the least thing they can label as accurate, if not absolute truth, of our being. And there's sure no dogma or force belief in absurd thing in Science.[/QUOTE]



Of course there are only two issues with your argument and they happen to be substantial. 1) The average person (i.e., the non-scientist) cannot, in FACT consider anything within the realm of science accurate. Why do I claim this? Because in the case of Average Joe Atheist, he doesn't know anything about the world except what someone else (the scientist) told him about the world. Average Joe Atheist and Muslim Mike (love these names) both acquire their perceptions of the world entirely from the findings of someone else and not from their own discoveries. So regardless of their belief systems, in a pessimistic sense they are in the same boat. Now onto the second issue in your argument. 2) Scientology - that's all I need to say.



End of Demo.

 

[-lexus-]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']Ah, the classic [lexus] play. The one you used against Kaze and Noex. You know the play. Your opponent catches you on you bullshit, prove to the entire forum that you're incompetent, and you avoid the questions laid down to save face. I've gone from laughing at you to pitying you. Noex, get a look at this guy.



1) How do you know what is written down are scientific facts?

2) How do you know they are facts unless you verify them yourself?

3) If a dozen scientists claim to know something as fact and a dozen believers claim to know something as fact, how do you determine who is correct?



Bear in mind number 3 is a trick question because you can't. Given your, heh, "standing" you probably won't conduct any experiments on your own to verify whether the scientific findings laid before you are fact or fiction.[/QUOTE]

Mmmkay, Ill play ball. Well, I know it because I know who wrote it. And if it written down, its evidence is referenced at the end. If I want, I can look it all up, every piece of evidence that is used to construct the argument. Then, when it deals with the results of an experiment, the article explains exactly what they did, so if I ever feel the need to do the experiment myself, I know exactly what to do. Third, despite your personal feelings towards me, Im not stupid, I can tell if someone draws justifiable conclusions from the evidence or not and I do adopts a critical attitude towards what scientists tell me.



I dont know if they are 'facts' in the sense that they are universal truths, and I will not claim that any of the things in the books Ive read are that. I know that they are the most logical conclusions that we can deduce at this moment in time. That might change in the future, and I accept that. But yes, your aim was probably for me to say that I trust in the arguments of other people. Which is true. The difference for me with the bible and the things I read in school books (mind you, not the highschool ones, the ones they make me read at the University) is that I can look up the authors, their reputation, their critics, their critics arguments, etc. Its more reliable then a book that has a known history of rewriting by anonymous monks and scribes, a book that is mostly written in metaphors, etc etc. Its far more unreliable.



And yes, although I cant say for 100% certain that the bible is right or wrong, similar as I can say that about science, I still regard science to be the most reliable of the two, so I pick that over the bible. So yeah, my belief in science as the right way, stems from my belief in the most reliable of the two. I doubt I have to tell you that it was science that advanced humanity, not prayer and faith in a guy upstairs. Science's track record speaks for its reliability as well. Probably has something to do with my respect for results....



And actually, number 3 isnt a trick question. Scientists provide me with a method to see for myself if they are right or wrong, believers so far have always told me its a fact because it says in the bible. So, if I want, I can test what the scientists are saying for myself, while Ill have to rely on blind faith for what the believers tell me. Again, a matter of what is a more reliable way of finding facts.



Youre a journalist, do you rely on what someone tells you and then print it, or do you look further, ask questions to other people, seek out as much of the facts you can before you publish your findings?

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']Potato, Potahto. Got it. :-.-:[/QUOTE]

:shrug:

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']Did I not just bring down most of the ridiculous non-theistic philosophies with a few keystrokes? It wasn't at all difficult.[/QUOTE]

Must've missed it.

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']1) The average person (i.e., the non-scientist) cannot, in FACT consider anything within the realm of science accurate. Why do I claim this? Because in the case of Average Joe Atheist, he doesn't know anything about the world except what someone else (the scientist) told him about the world. Average Joe Atheist and Muslim Mike (love these names) both acquire their perceptions of the world entirely from the findings of someone else and not from their own discoveries. So regardless of their belief systems, in a pessimistic sense they are in the same boat.[/QUOTE]I am struggling to know as to why that's a problem? True, many people's beliefs are just a follow up of what other's believed. For example, the Inuits maybe ritualistic and animistic, but they did no believe in a deity, they did not have the concept of "God" in their culture, this has continued and until some missionaries brought the concept of god to them. And there's a good reason why I picked Inuits as an example.

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']2) Scientology - that's all I need to say.

End of Demo.[/QUOTE]

This guy disagrees.

 

[-lexus-]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX'] 1) The average person (i.e., the non-scientist) cannot, in FACT consider anything within the realm of science accurate. Why do I claim this? Because in the case of Average Joe Atheist, he doesn't know anything about the world except what someone else (the scientist) told him about the world. Average Joe Atheist and Muslim Mike (love these names) both acquire their perceptions of the world entirely from the findings of someone else and not from their own discoveries. So regardless of their belief systems, in a pessimistic sense they are in the same boat. Now onto the second issue in your argument. [/QUOTE]

How is that any different for Charles the Christian? He too derives everything from what his preacher/guys who wrote and edited the bible tell him. So again, it comes down on reliability of the source. Educated people with a critical approach to what they do or someone who interprets a book that was written roughly 2000 years ago and edited uncountable times during those 2000 years.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Kufufufufufu!

Wow, no wonder Noex called you hopeless. :shrug:





[quote name=''[lexus'];94446']Mmmkay, Ill play ball. Well, I know it because I know who wrote it. And if it written down, its evidence is referenced at the end. If I want, I can look it all up, every piece of evidence that is used to construct the argument. Then, when it deals with the results of an experiment, the article explains exactly what they did, so if I ever feel the need to do the experiment myself, I know exactly what to do. Third, despite your personal feelings towards me, Im not stupid, I can tell if someone draws justifiable conclusions from the evidence or not and I do adopts a critical attitude towards what scientists tell me.[/QUOTE]



The evidence that is referenced is still findings from someone else. They are not your own thus it is heresay. Even if 100 other researchers back the findings you are studying, if you aren't the one embarking on experimentation yourself then all you "know" is what someone else told you to think.







[quote name=''[lexus'];94446']I dont know if they are 'facts' in the sense that they are universal truths, and I will not claim that any of the things in the books Ive read are that. I know that they are the most logical conclusions that we can deduce at this moment in time. That might change in the future, and I accept that. But yes, your aim was probably for me to say that I trust in the arguments of other people. Which is true. The difference for me with the bible and the things I read in school books (mind you, not the highschool ones, the ones they make me read at the University) is that I can look up the authors, their reputation, their critics, their critics arguments, etc. Its more reliable then a book that has a known history of rewriting by anonymous monks and scribes, a book that is mostly written in metaphors, etc etc. Its far more unreliable.[/QUOTE]



And I reiterate thus: all you know is what someone else told you to think.





[quote name=''[lexus'];94446']And yes, although I cant say for 100% certain that the bible is right or wrong, similar as I can say that about science, I still regard science to be the most reliable of the two, so I pick that over the bible.[/QUOTE]



How do you define reliable? Is your definition based not on what someone else told you? If for example I am a scientist and I conduct a large-scale experiment that is complicated as hell. I say the experiment is reliable and so you believe me simply because I am a scientist.





[quote name=''[lexus'];94446']And actually, number 3 isnt a trick question. Scientists provide me with a method to see for myself if they are right or wrong, believers so far have always told me its a fact because it says in the bible. So, if I want, I can test what the scientists are saying for myself, while Ill have to rely on blind faith for what the believers tell me. Again, a matter of what is a more reliable way of finding facts.[/QUOTE]



It was a trick question and sure enough, like a blind animal you fell for it. I ask you to "INDEPENDENTLY" verify a scientific claim. How do you do it? You do it by using the guidelines handed down to you by the scientist in question who's findings you are tying to verify. The scientist in question has trapped you in a self-fulfilling biases. If a researcher gives you a NEW theory of gravity's effects on the earth's magnetism, you need to verify the validity of his theory. I am asking you to do that independently. You have opted not to. Instead you say that science gives you the method to prove science. By extension of that logical fallacy, the scientist in this case would provide you with the science you need to verify whether his theory is correct. That is the same as saying, "Here is my theory, oh but if you want to prove or disprove it you can only use 'this' set of guidelines." If the theory you are trying to prove places on you limitations that forces you to work WITHIN the confines that theory laid down then any conclusion you come up with will only support the scientist in question. Objectivity and with that, the truth of the findings is impossible to discover because the game or in this case the experiment is rigged from the outset.





[quote name=''[lexus'];94446']Youre a journalist, do you rely on what someone tells you and then print it, or do you look further, ask questions to other people, seek out as much of the facts you can before you publish your findings?[/QUOTE]



It depends. Good Journalists (moi) try to gather facts from as many sources as possible and get people the information they need in the least amount of time. However, outlets like FOX News tend to make shit up as they go along and even if their reporters are wrong they proceed with the story anyway until someone catches. TMZ always reports "news" as they get it and do little in the way of follow-up. Of course they aren't technically making things up as they go along, rather they report incomplete stories and add details later. We Journalists have a lot in common with scientists. [Our math just isn't as good.] We tell you what to think and you do it. We claim to have our findings but we each know our audience and we know you aren't going to do the legwork to verify whether we are correct or otherwise.





[quote name=''[lexus'];94456']How is that any different for Charles the Christian? He too derives everything from what his preacher/guys who wrote and edited the bible tell him. So again, it comes down on reliability of the source. Educated people with a critical approach to what they do or someone who interprets a book that was written roughly 2000 years ago and edited uncountable times during those 2000 years.[/QUOTE]



I didn't imply there was any difference. :shrug:



My god is it even possible for you to pay attention to anything that isn't moving? Charles the Christian was busy so I contacted Muslim Mike. I already said that they were in the same boat because they both have claims that neither of them can verify. My issue is that non-believers like to think they are better when really, they are in the same boat as believers. Being an objective party I can argue that.



This bores me. Someone bring Kindaichi Hajime and Noex to me.

 

[-lexus-]

[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']The evidence that is referenced is still findings from someone else. They are not your own thus it is heresay. Even if 100 other researchers back the findings you are studying, if you aren't the one embarking on experimentation yourself then all you "know" is what someone else told you to think.[/QUOTE]

Okay, you have me, I believe what others tell me, and I believe them because their methods are more transparent and reliable then anything else. And more importantly, I believe them because I can see their genius in practice everyday. Medicine, computers, internet, cellphones, cars, satellites, etc are the result of what some scientist said would work, in a certain way, and look, it works!



And the religious alternative? Well, the last prediction some religious guy made turned out to be quite wrong, so forgive my skepticism. And on top of that, it wasnt some preacher who prayed really hard to God and the next day we had modern medicine, or computers, or cars, or airplanes, or Quantum Mechanics.



And why would I reinvent thousands years of human progress, starting from the wheel towards advanced physics, just so I established everything myself independent from what scientists told me. Thats rather impractical dont you think?

How do you define reliable? Is your definition based not on what someone else told you. If for example I am a scientist and I conduct a large-scale experiment that is complicated as hell. I say the experiment is reliable and so you believe me simply because I am a scientist.

No, reliability does not come from the scientist who tells me its reliable, but the scientific system. The way the scientist tells me the method he used, so I can perform the experiment myself. Essentially a scientific report describes in detail what the scientist did, what he saw, and what conclusions he derives from what he saw. That is what makes it reliable.

It was a trick question and sure enough, like a blind animal you fell for it. I ask you to "INDEPENDENTLY" verify a scientific claim. How do you do it? You do it by using the guidelines handed down to you by the scientist in question who's findings you are tying to verify. The scientist in question has trapped you in a self-fulfilling biases. If a researcher gives you a NEW theory of gravity's effects on the earth's magnetism, you need to verify the validity of his theory. I am asking you to do that independently. You have opted not to. Instead you say that science gives you the method to prove science. By extension of that logical fallacy, the scientist in this case would provide you with the science you need to verify whether his theory is correct. That is the same as saying, "Here is my theory, oh but if you want to prove or disprove it you can only use 'this' set of guidelines." If the theory you are trying to prove places on you limitations that forces you to work WITHIN the confines that theory laid down then any conclusion you come up with will only support the scientist in question. Objectivity and with that, the truth of the findings is impossible to discover because the game or in this case the experiment is rigged from the outset.

First, your question was this: "3) If a dozen scientists claim to know something as fact and a dozen believers claim to know something as fact, how do you determine who is correct?"

Nowhere is the word INDEPENDENTLY to be seen, so yeah, its rather easy for people to fall for trick questions if the trick lays in the fact that you dont phrase the question correctly.



Second of all, thats not how science works. You are assuming that if I use the exact same method as the previous scientist, my results will also be the same, which doesnt have to be the case. Far from it in fact, it happens all to often that one scientist thinks he has something, but when other scientists repeat the experiment in the same manner, the results differ significantly. Yes, if the results are consistently the same, its reasonable to assume you have found some sort of rule, instead of an exception the first scientist just accidentally stumbled upon. Added to that, that once new evidence is found, old theories have to be tested and possibly discarded because they become obsolete and now longer can account to all the relevant evidence.



Science is constantly moving and evolving. Theories get discarded because they no longer fit, new theories get added because of new insights. And most importantly, and for me the main reason why I trust science over religion, science produces results, where religion consistently fails to contribute with anything meaningful and practically applicable. Its not prayer that brings us modern technology, medicine, etc. Thats all the work of science.





Oh sorry, I didnt know Charles the Christian was so busy when you wrote your post.



And no, not entirely the same boat. Science has practical results and proof to back up its claims, religion doesnt.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Hm, perhaps you can be taught. I'll have to share my findings with Harvard.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

This is kinda embarrasing to me,but what the hell.

[quote name='Deadpool']God does not exist.



Proof.



Nobody has ever seen him.

Nobody can even show he is there.

Nobody has proof he made any of this*points to everything*[/QUOTE]



My friend, there are many things we can't see(air,gravity,black holes, and so on).

Proof:

Nobody has ever seen (air,gravity,black holes, and so on).

Nobody can even show (air,gravity,black holes, and so on) is there.



Yet, why do we believe so? :shrug:

Well, that's the point, there is nothing stupid about having faith in god.

Even though we can't see God, we can feel his presence.(A holy text made so possible to me).

Not trying to make something up or trying to convert anyone, but that's how it is for me.

kthxbai.

 

[-lexus-]

Atoms cant be seen by the naked eye either, yet people are made out of them. So, following your logic, people should be invisible, because they are made from invisible particles.



Obviously, this logic does not fly. Yeah, you cant see air, yet you dont need blind faith in it to know its there. You dont choke, so you know there is air. You can feel the wind against your face. We know the exact composition of air, of what small particles air is made off.



Gravity, hmm well, again, no blind faith required. The fact that we dont float away is proof that there is a force called gravity which keeps our feet on the ground. Furthermore, gravity has light bending effects, and I believe astronomers do have seen these light bending effects (thats I believe, also how they found out about Black Holes).



Your right, no one can see a black hole, but one can still detect one.



If you want to believe in God, thats entirely your choice, just please, dont use such silly examples and flawed logic as this to justify it. It makes my eyes twitch...

 

[Kaze Araki]

[quote name='Billion-Degree Dragon']Yet, why do we believe so? :shrug:[/QUOTE]

How about because they are empirically testable?

You can't empirically test God.

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='Kindaichi Hajime']How about because they are empirically testable?

You can't empirically test God.[/QUOTE]This

[quote name='Billion-Degree Dragon']Nobody has ever seen (air,gravity,black holes, and so on). Nobody can even show (air,gravity,black holes, and so on) is there.[/QUOTE]

Air... that'll be tough...

[SPOILERA]

[/SPOILERA]



You see, the further the object, the less clearer it becomes. This is called Aerial perspective effect - why does that happens? You guessed it, it's because of air.



Gravity? There are many evidences that it exists without showing how it looks. If you know what black holes are, I am sure you can interpret this.

Spoiler: Sun, having a rash

Nobody have seen Radio waves or Microwaves - We sure do know it's there, because without it, I wouldn't even be here to begin with - it's applicable. And so does Subsonic sound waves - were our machines picked it up, but not us - because we can't sense it. But we have evolved to sense it differently, not through hearing, but physically experiencing the sound waves. The Ghost in the Machine pdf explains it a lot.



Black hole... well... er. umm...



If you are saying that just because we can't see a thing it doesn't mean it isn't there - well, I am sure the thing we don't see also are interacting with us and we are interacting with them. As for you "feeling" is purely anecdotal - and there is some hundred reasons to why we "feel" of godly presence.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

Just because Qur'an assert things, does not necessarily makes them true.

However, as far as my limited knowledge goes, these assertions are at least able to reach a level to which I am able to infer it.

This



Air... that'll be tough...

[SPOILERA]

[/SPOILERA]



You see, the further the object, the less clearer it becomes. This is called Aerial perspective effect - why does that happens? You guessed it, it's because of air.



Gravity? There are many evidences that it exists without showing how it looks. If you know what black holes are, I am sure you can interpret this.

Spoiler: Sun, having a rash

Nobody have seen Radio waves or Microwaves - We sure do know it's there, because without it, I wouldn't even be here to begin with - it's applicable. And so does Subsonic sound waves - were our machines picked it up, but not us - because we can't sense it. But we have evolved to sense it differently, not through hearing, but physically experiencing the sound waves. The Ghost in the Machine pdf explains it a lot.



Black hole... well... er. umm...



If you are saying that just because we can't see a thing it doesn't mean it isn't there - well, I am sure the thing we don't see also are interacting with us and we are interacting with them. As for you "feeling" is purely anecdotal - and there is some hundred reasons to why we "feel" of godly presence.

Exactly, bro, just like how we can infer that the air exists without showing how it looks, I am able to infer the existence of God without seeing him.

Our friend BloodPool believes that God can never exist just because we are unable to see him..

How about because they are empirically testable?

You can't empirically test God.

But, there are evidences(IMO) which can help us(well, at least me) infer the existence of god.

(ie; Prophecy, Holy text and science, first cause, and so on).

Atoms cant be seen by the naked eye either, yet people are made out of them. So, following your logic, people should be invisible, because they are made from invisible particles.

Obviously, this logic does not fly. Yeah, you cant see air, yet you dont need blind faith in it to know its there. You dont choke, so you know there is air. You can feel the wind against your face. We know the exact composition of air, of what small particles air is made off.

Gravity, hmm well, again, no blind faith required. The fact that we dont float away is proof that there is a force called gravity which keeps our feet on the ground. Furthermore, gravity has light bending effects, and I believe astronomers do have seen these light bending effects (thats I believe, also how they found out about Black Holes).

Have you ever been on Earth where there was/is/if no gravity? - No

So how do you know that you will float away if there is no Gravity? - Space(assumption, BTW, IMO, gravity does exist in space as well)

Have you ever been to space? - No

What are you using? - Faith (Yes, but I am very sure that [lexus] had never experienced an area without Gravity

)

Your right, no one can see a black hole, but one can still detect one.



If you want to believe in God, thats entirely your choice, just please, dont use such silly examples and flawed logic as this to justify it. It makes my eyes twitch...

Oh, OK...

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='Billion-Degree Dragon' timestamp='1306503843' post='137883']

Exactly, bro, just like how we can infer that the air exists without showing how it looks, I am able to infer the existence of God without seeing him.

Our friend BloodPool believes that God can never exist just because we are unable to see him..[/quote]Yes, I agree he too had a weak argument, just like you had. But both yours and his are argumentum ad ignorantiams.



[quote name='Billion-Degree Dragon' timestamp='1306503843' post='137883']But, there are evidences(IMO) which can help us(well, at least me) infer the existence of god.

(ie; Prophecy, Holy text and science, first cause, and so on).[/quote]First of all, these are hardly evidences, especially the Holy Text one. And I think Kindaichi already touched the Holy Text one. Just because a Book holds authority doesn't mean what it states is true - especially Holy scripts.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

[quote name='Biomega' timestamp='1306505447' post='137904']

Yes, I agree he too had a weak argument, just like you had. But both yours and his are argumentum ad ignorantiams.[/quote]

Either way, point was made : Just because we can't see god, doesn't mean that he does not exist.



[quote name='Biomega' timestamp='1306505447' post='137904']First of all, these are hardly evidences, especially the Holy Text one. And I think Kindaichi already touched the Holy Text one. Just because a Book holds authority doesn't mean what it states is true - especially Holy scripts.

[/quote]

You are correct, but we don't believe that the book is true just because it holds authority, rather due to the miracles(IMO, that's one reason why I believe so, if others don't, IDK, it's just me then). - especially the prophecies.

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='Billion-Degree Dragon' timestamp='1306512799' post='137955']You are correct, but we don't believe that the book is true just because it holds authority, rather due to the miracles(IMO, that's one reason why I believe so, if others don't, IDK, it's just me then). - especially the prophecies.[/quote]Prophecies...



In George Orwell's book '1984'(A book of fables), he mention Telescreens - a 70 year old book. It's a flat rectangular device, with no back, that projects clear live images - and it can even see you.



[spoilera]

[/spoilera]



His prediction has been realised. Does this makes him a prophet? A god of some kind?



'London of Time'(a 100 year old literary work) by Mark Twain, Predicted Internet forums. We are using it now, is this a prophecy that has been fulfilled?



These are prophecies.

 

[-lexus-]

Randomness and coincidence are not actually an argument that would support God. So far, it always goes like this: chances are so small, by any means, they should be considered as impossible. Normally they would if you had these odds and you were testing it in a lab. However, the things it is applied to, such as the chance of a planet containing life, take place on such a huge scale that a chance of one in a billion will still result in a loooooooot of planets. It is estimated that the observable universe contains about 3 to 100 × 10^22 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars). Thats a loooooot of stars. Assuming some simple fist rules on the prevalence of planets, how many of those are expected to lay in the Goldilocks zone, the chances of planets having life, are well....not so small anymore.



Edit: source for the amount of stars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3085885.stm