Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does God Exist?

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jason2)
    No, people follow out of choice. And you've dodged my question. You obey the Law because of fear of going to prison - how is that any different? And before you say I agree with the Law, no, you don't agree with it all. No-one does.

    You're not worth answering tbh, you get too pissy. I saw your thread!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    God obviously has no place in this world. He is nothing but trouble.

    When something good happens, it is always because of god. And when something bad happens, it's always because god decided to test us weak mortals.

    It's not hard to look at reality, and then realise that God isn't running this planet.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Athiesm is a belief that their is no God(1). Notice the word 'believe'. They frequently cite the theory of evolution that has been disproved and cannot be proved. The 'primordial soup' theory is mathematically aaaand biologically impossible. What do you have left i hear you say? A divine creator my non-believing freinds.

    http://alsunna.org/Intellectual-Proo...-from-God.html







    1. 1.Rowe, WL. ”Atheism”, in Craig. E Routledge, Ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York, 1998. Return to text.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nglish/atheism

    the definition of atheism,
    Definition of atheism
    noun
    [mass noun]
    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.




    Origin:
    late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

    Also you are arguing against abiogenesis NOT evolution, they are two different things. If you are going to critique something you must first understand the definitions at least
    • 53 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlpinaeCerebrum)
    According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Athiesm is a belief that their is no God(1).
    And according to the oxford English dictionary it is defined as those who simply do not believe or lack belief in god. Both are applicable, but neither is applicable to everyone. Atheism is too broad a term to categorise the entire non-religious community with a single concise term.

    Notice the word 'believe'. They frequently cite the theory of evolution that has been disproved and cannot be proved.
    Evolution has been proven and continues to withstand any and all scrutiny. It is as established as any other theory within biology.

    The 'primordial soup' theory is mathematically aaaand biologically impossible.
    What you're thinking of is spontaneous generation, which has been a dead hypothesis since the discovery of microorganisms. There are other hypotheses which are completely plausible that biologists are finding increasingly more evidence to support.

    What do you have left i hear you say? A divine creator my non-believing freinds.
    False dichotomy and an argument from ignorance.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The other hypothesis you refer to are supported by a small segment of the scientific community and again evolution is as scientific as climate change (which has been disproved) . I dont blame you for your conviction to evolution and or any other related theories as they have been marketed to people outside the scientific community unrelentingly knowing they wont be able to argue either for or against.

    Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

    Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")
    Albiogenesis and Evolution Theory still interlink and support each other Gofre, evolution is purely dogmatic and unscientific.I dont appreciate your ad hominem aswell , instead a correction would suffice.

    In response to your ingrorant claim that evolution stands without repudiation i have included a link to 100 scientists, some Nobel prize winners who argue against or are highly skeptical, unlike some biologists*. Along with the pdf file i have attached a paper on the scientific case against evolition**. Wish you all the best.

    *http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...ientistsAd.pdf
    **http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-330.pdf
    • 53 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, climate change denial too?

    If you really want to play a numbers game, the Dissent From Darwin list was dwarfed by Project Steve. This sort of argument from authority fails when the list of scientists you have can be beaten by a list compiled of scientists with only two Christian names between them.

    I do not have a conviction in evolution because i'm an outsider buying into marketing, I accept the validity of evolution because I'm a biology student that (at least I would like to think) is able to actually assess the information presented for himself. Please don't insult my intelligence by saying it's not my fault I've been duped by evil scientists, and on the subjects of insults I didn't use anything close to an ad hom. If you're referring to the term "argument from ignorance", that's the name of the logical fallacy you committed.

    I am more than aware of every mainstream creationist argument peddled by he likes of ICR and the discovery institute, the latter of which is a particularly nasty organisation. They all fail.

    Needless to say this is getting off topic, if you wish to hold a discussion on evolution feel free to VM/PM me, or make a post in the Evo sticky with your key arguments and quote me at the end so I get notified.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have found this a really hard topic to discuss because i'm always arguing against myself I have been christian since birth, as suprising as it sounds when i pray to god when i'm in doubt or trouble i get a bit of luck or my situation is resolved but then i look at something like the tsunami and just can't believe that god could let such a thing happen..i'm really on the fence on this one :/
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's pretty simple for me. I don't believe in God because there isn't a single scrap of evidence to support it.
    life is not a reason for God. The existence of life has no link to a super being that created it.

    I'm pretty shocked that people still believe in deities in this day and age.

    Religious people complain that without God we have nothing to live for. We are self aware beings, we can come up with our own reasons for living. We don't even need a reason to exist.

    Furthermore, religious people say "how can life be beautiful without God?" - eh? To me the universe is the most beautiful thing that I can possibly imagine, and that fact that it's all a result of elements being created in stars reacting with eachother and forces manipulating these particles makes it even more so.

    In fact, the thing that amazes me most is when I look up into the night sky at the stars and just think that every molecule in my body was forged in a star long ago, which exploded and scattered it's particles throughout space. When I look up I don't feel disconnected from space in any way - we ARE the universe.

    Christianity adapts itself to suit the current social norms. Science adapts itself to the truth about what we observe.
    Another way of putting that - Science is an ever changing belief based around evidence, religion is the denial of evidence to preserve a belief
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazbo)
    I have found this a really hard topic to discuss because i'm always arguing against myself I have been christian since birth, as suprising as it sounds when i pray to god when i'm in doubt or trouble i get a bit of luck or my situation is resolved but then i look at something like the tsunami and just can't believe that god could let such a thing happen..i'm really on the fence on this one :/
    what is brilliant about christianity and religion in general is that they teach you that doubt and questioning is a negative thing. as humans one of our greatest assets is our ability to consciously and abstractly question a subject. but to get you to continue believing you need to be stripped of that knowledge. doubt becomes sin, questioning is the work of the devil, and the people that encourage you to question are working for the devil. religion turns our most basic instincts into sin and then offers to cure us of them. in reality we never needed the medicine in the first place. if you are arguing with yourself, at least be honest with yourself.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazbo)
    I have found this a really hard topic to discuss because i'm always arguing against myself I have been christian since birth, as suprising as it sounds when i pray to god when i'm in doubt or trouble i get a bit of luck or my situation is resolved but then i look at something like the tsunami and just can't believe that god could let such a thing happen..i'm really on the fence on this one :/
    This is called (by christians) the problem of evil, and I've been told that it is a 'divine mystery', which is a phrase which, in my experience, means the exact same thing as 'plot hole'.

    Quick point on praying: If you believe God is all knowing and all powerful, what the hell point is there in asking it to change its plans? Also, isn't any being which creates life with the express purpose of being continually told what a great being he is just a little bit narcissistic?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlpinaeCerebrum)
    The other hypothesis you refer to are supported by a small segment of the scientific community and again evolution is as scientific as climate change (which has been disproved) . I dont blame you for your conviction to evolution and or any other related theories as they have been marketed to people outside the scientific community unrelentingly knowing they wont be able to argue either for or against.



    Albiogenesis and Evolution Theory still interlink and support each other Gofre, evolution is purely dogmatic and unscientific.I dont appreciate your ad hominem aswell , instead a correction would suffice.

    In response to your ingrorant claim that evolution stands without repudiation i have included a link to 100 scientists, some Nobel prize winners who argue against or are highly skeptical, unlike some biologists*. Along with the pdf file i have attached a paper on the scientific case against evolition**. Wish you all the best.

    *http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...ientistsAd.pdf
    **http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-330.pdf
    Sadly, your paper is incorrect at the first hurdle: Evolution is not happening now.

    MRSA sufferers would disagree with you, as they are now facing a bacterium which has evolved to resist the drugs which humans have used to treat Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium discovered less than 150 years ago.

    The drug resistant form of the bacterium mutated, was selected for (by the wiping out of the others by antibiotics) and proliferated. New bacterial species. All in the last century.

    As to Abiogenesis, the argument from probability is simple: there is a fixed chance, however small, of an amount of matter clumping in the correct way to produce rudimentary life. Say 1 in a trillion. Now, assume infinite possible universes occur. Probability of life tends to 1. As to how we happened upon the correct universe, simple. In all the universes where life didn't happen, there was nobody to point it out, so the probability of us being in a universe where life did happen is also 1.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No one can say for sure whether God exists or not. Not even Richard Dawkins. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman, he gave his reasons for including the sentence "God almost certainly does not exist" in 'The God Delusion' (thereby leaving it open for any other possibility) by saying that no one can prove or disprove his existence with 100% conviction. But, certainly, one can reasonably conclude through the various inexplicable experiences in one's life that there is a higher plane than the one we live on. And, may be, that plane is governed by a supernatural conscious power. Of course, God does not have to be a being/man/woman as depicted in dozens of religions. God can also be the all-pervading consciousness or energy that envelops the whole universe or multi-verse!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlpinaeCerebrum)
    The other hypothesis you refer to are supported by a small segment of the scientific community and again evolution is as scientific as climate change (which has been disproved) . I dont blame you for your conviction to evolution and or any other related theories as they have been marketed to people outside the scientific community unrelentingly knowing they wont be able to argue either for or against.



    Albiogenesis and Evolution Theory still interlink and support each other Gofre, evolution is purely dogmatic and unscientific.I dont appreciate your ad hominem aswell , instead a correction would suffice.

    In response to your ingrorant claim that evolution stands without repudiation i have included a link to 100 scientists, some Nobel prize winners who argue against or are highly skeptical, unlike some biologists*. Along with the pdf file i have attached a paper on the scientific case against evolition**. Wish you all the best.

    *http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...ientistsAd.pdf
    **http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-330.pdf
    I one look at the second link you posted and in five seconds found two glaringly obvious false statements.

    It states Evolution is not happening now, when it is. It also stated there was no evidence of Macroevolution which there is. The best way to find it is in short lived species such as insects or rodents. The famous example is peppered moths, whose wing colour changed over subsequent generation from white to black due to the lichen covered trees they lived on being contaminated by soot during the industrial revolution. An observable piece of evolution is rattlesnakes are being observed to not rattle if they are agitated as those that do are more likely to be killed. So those that don't aren't being killed as they aren't being found, as they are staying quiet and are starting to make up a significant portion of the rattlesnake population.

    Also if evolution doesn't happen, why can't we cure HIV? The reason we can't is that it rapidly mutates faster than our immune system can respond and any drugs we use are not a hundred percent effective as some of the mutations make the virus resistant or immune to the effects of the drug and thus survive the treatment. Whilst the virus cells are affet die out so soon all the viral cells in the body are immune to treatment, it has thus evolved to the treatment.

    As I carried on reading, it talked some bull**** about cogs or dats, trying to show that dogs didn't turn into cats and vice versa. This is not how evolution works in the slightest. Both dogs and cats had a common ancestor, and different populations of the ancestor came under different selective pressure and diversified over millions of years, to adapt to their environments. That is how evolution works, random mutation changes individual in a species increasing diversity, beneficial mutations allow organisms to outcompete their competition and the general make up of the species gradually changes as they pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Those with less beneficial or harmful mutation don't reproduce and go extinct.

    It also states that their should be transitional fossils that don't exist, but they do. We have found loads of fossils that are ancestors of current living organisms. Examples, Archeopteryx for birds, which possessed traits of lizards and current birds. Sabre toothed tigers for cats and Homos Habilis, Neanderthalis and many others for humans, to name but a few. If an organism has traits found in fossilised creatures, then that fossil IS a transitional fossil as evolution is continuous.

    Also the conditions needed for fossils to form are rare and in certain places on earth can't happen so we may never find fossil in some places of some species. That doesn't mean you can just put "God did it" in the gaps, as THAT is unscientific.

    With regards to the first link have you heard of Project Steve, this is a declaration now with 1200 scientists all of whom are called steve as their given name, who support evolution.

    Don't try and debate evolution if you don't know how it works.

    With regards to your climate change comment, climate change has not been disproved because we have mountains of evidence for it. The debatable part is whether or nor humanity is influencing climate change as in the next few thouand years earth is meant to go into it's next ice age or glacial period. Us releasing chemicals into the atmosphere could be having an effect, whether it is or not and how much of an effect is having is up for debate, not that the climate is changing, but if we're influencing it.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usernamevoid)
    No one can say for sure whether God exists or not. Not even Richard Dawkins. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman, he gave his reasons for including the sentence "God almost certainly does not exist" in 'The God Delusion' (thereby leaving it open for any other possibility) by saying that no one can prove or disprove his existence with 100% conviction. But, certainly, one can reasonably conclude through the various inexplicable experiences in one's life that there is a higher plane than the one we live on. And, may be, that plane is governed by a supernatural conscious power. Of course, God does not have to be a being/man/woman as depicted in dozens of religions. God can also be the all-pervading consciousness or energy that envelops the whole universe or multi-verse!
    I hope you realise that without some evidence that we have "a higher plane" or an "all-pervading consciousness" or "energy that envelops the whole universe" you will sound like some uneducated, hippy alternate practitioner talking about chakra and chi.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Whatever you believe guides you through life. Personally, I believe that God gave us this natural instinct and helps us through tough situations, pushes us forward, and reminds us that everything happens for a reason.
    • 39 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bellazz)
    Whatever you believe guides you through life. Personally, I believe that God gave us this natural instinct and helps us through tough situations, pushes us forward, and reminds us that everything happens for a reason.
    I'm interested to know for what reason you think the holocaust happened?
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bellazz)
    Whatever you believe guides you through life. Personally, I believe that God gave us this natural instinct and helps us through tough situations, pushes us forward, and reminds us that everything happens for a reason.
    Sentences that begin with "personally, I believe" and continue and end with total assertion waste perfectly good pixels.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reems23)
    Believing in God is an irrational choice, and those religious people who accept that and are comfortable with the fact that religion can't be explained through earthly ways, they are the people who are truly religious and at peace with themselves.
    not believing god is very irrational if you just think about the complexity of the universe. saying this universe came from nothing is the most irrational thought ever!!! every thing has a creater for example a car, a phone which are simple things. how can something such as the universe has just come by chance.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thebigfudge85)
    i think the word Athiesm is often misunderstood. Its not about claiming God doesn't exist it's about not believing in God, God is a concept that you can neither prove nor disprove it belongs in philosophy. It is about a disbelief in God.

    I am an Atheist I disbelieve in God, However if God does exist I am open for him to come down/up and tell me himself
    i dont think you or me are that important for god to tell us personally that he exists. we were created then we live for a short period of time then we die just like billions of people before us. our every breath is dependent on god i sincerly hope you recieve guidance form your lord like i have
Updated: August 21, 2012
New on TSR

So how did you do?

Come into the GCSE forum to share your grades

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.