God exists

[The Dreamer]

I'm not denying God, because he would have to be real in the first place. If he were real, there would be no reason for me to deny him. And if god were real, he would simply appear in front of everyone and would not reveal himself only to a select few who often turn out to be nut jobs.

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
All the people I listed believed in God. You should do more research.
And what doesn't make sense? They don't base their atheism on scientific evidence but on their own lack of belief. They'll go with arguments "If God is real why is there so much evil in the world?" or "If God exists then who created him?" and so on. All these questions are answered in religions but they act as if those answers don't exist.
And lol u make no sense again. Science can't explain what didn't happen? Lol how does that tie to the fact science explains how it happened, while religion explains why it happened?
I didn't contradict myself. I said that I don't go against the theory of extraterrestial life and merely listed the facts of why it is nearly impossible. Also you call my view of complex subjective while you yet again say that life isn't as complex wich is nothing more but your subjective opinion. So if anyone's condradicting themselves it's you.
Also the last line about you not denying God because if he was real he would have showed himself is beyond ridicilous. It actually falls into the category of those baby arguments I already mentioned. First of all you're talking as if you know how a God should behave (wich is ironic after telling me that I am not capable of understanding more complex works).
Yet again you didn't counter any points I made but stated a bunch of things that made even less sense than your previous statements.

 

[ministerC4]

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
All the people I listed believed in God. You should do more research.
And what doesn't make sense? They don't base their atheism on scientific evidence but on their own lack of belief. They'll go with arguments "If God is real why is there so much evil in the world?" or "If God exists then who created him?" and so on. All these questions are answered in religions but they act as if those answers don't exist.

Yet none of you theists who claim to even "read" your books can ever answer.
The irony.

And please, let's not talk about logical fallacies.

 

[The Dreamer]

Yet none of you theists who claim to even "read" your books can ever answer.
The irony.

You're one of them huh? What I was saying was that the question is wrong as it goes against the basic definition of God wich goes that he's an uncreated creator. The concept of creaton is his, the rules of our reality were designed by him, human understanding can't perceive Him as He is beyond us. If one knew something as simple as a definition of God that person wouldn't be saying such stuff.

 

[Sasuke2]

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
All the people I listed believed in God. You should do more research.
No, they didn't. Einstein was an agnostic and a naturalist. He believed that the universe itself is "God" rather than having been created by one, but universe being "God" as a whole not as a conscious entity. Same for some of the others.
And what doesn't make sense? They don't base their atheism on scientific evidence but on their own lack of belief. They'll go with arguments "If God is real why is there so much evil in the world?" or "If God exists then who created him?" and so on. All these questions are answered in religions but they act as if those answers don't exist.
Lack of belief in the face of no evidence. There's no good reason to believe something, unless there is a good reason to believe something. There's no evidence for God, that's why I don't get why should someone even bother believing in the first place. Also there's no such thing as good or evil, only rational and irrational. And yes, the scriptures have a different answer, the God is a sadistic *******.
And lol u make no sense again. Science can't explain what didn't happen? Lol how does that tie to the fact science explains how it happened, while religion explains why it happened?
You can't explain how happened that which didn't happen.
I didn't contradict myself. I said that I don't go against the theory of extraterrestial life and merely listed the facts of why it is nearly impossible. Also you call my view of complex subjective while you yet again say that life isn't as complex wich is nothing more but your subjective opinion. So if anyone's condradicting themselves it's you.
Things may seem too complex to have occurred naturally by an accident, but only in the face of our own ignorance.
Also the last line about you not denying God because if he was real he would have showed himself is beyond ridicilous. It actually falls into the category of those baby arguments I already mentioned. First of all you're talking as if you know how a God should behave (wich is ironic after telling me that I am not capable of understanding more complex works).
Yet again you didn't counter any points I made but stated a bunch of things that made even less sense than your previous statements.

All I know is that if an omniscient, omnipotent all-loving perfect God were real, he would be concerned with more important things than what people do in their beds and with whom and if they ate pork during Lent/Sabbath.

 

[ministerC4]

You're one of them huh? What I was saying was that the question is wrong as it goes against the basic definition of God wich goes that he's an uncreated creator. The concept of creaton is his, the rules of our reality were designed by him, human understanding can't perceive Him as He is beyond us. If one knew something as simple as a definition of God that person wouldn't be saying such stuff.

The definition of God was created by a human.
This is one of the major things that make me dislike theists.
Shitty arguments, if you're gonna argue for existence by a definition you're out of luck.

If this kind of logic applied to NarutoBase Temari would solo all of narutoverse.
If it applied to the world, the world would be flat.

Come back when you get a better argument, to be frank I know you're a troll, but I have no clue if you're trolling or not.
Either way your arguments suck ass.

 

[Bronze]

Science doesn't disprove God's existence; in fact, it's opposite. If you conjunct religious beliefs (I recommend the Quran as it hasn't been altered and contains scientific scriptures) and science discoveries. I'll just copy few documents and reference them:

To prove God's existence, you would need 4 things found in our universe:

1). Eternal force that isn't involved within the time and space.
2). Force found everywhere - omnipresent.
3). All powerful force - omnipotent.
4). Force possessing all knowledge - omniscient.

Heisenberg concludes that all freed electrons behave as if they were influenced by a force isn't found in the universe. In a signal travels farther than light Malcolm W. Browne, a force was connecting two freed electrons & proved to be eternal, was present within our time, yet has involvement within our universe's time and space. Here you go - An eternal force proved by science.

Every particle in the universe is connected to this eternal force, which can be found in stars, light, radiation. This means this force is found everywhere, making it omnipresent. Number 2 that science proves God's existence.

In experiments conducted by Russian scientists found that laser photons knew when DNA molecules was added into the vacuum. The photons collected around DNA strand and began to change the order of the DNA to what it desired. After the laser was turned off and excess photons remained in position resembling the DNA for over 22 minutes. There you go - omnipotent confirmed by science.

Physicist Roger Vogelsang found within his STI device, that not only this force can communicate but can read thoughts and know all things in the past and future. There you go - omniscient proven by science.

Reference:

You must be registered for see links

Now all you need to do is, basically read the Quran that states how God is timeless, is all knowing, is all-powerful. Not necessarily the Quran, the bible and Torah will say the same thing.

 

[Floydical]

They have done studies on people's minds when praying for long periods of time. You can liken it to meditation, or getting close to god. In those cases, a common part of the brain was seeing abnormally high activity. From this, one could argue that god is essentially a byproduct of our own intelligence. Now that honestly doesn't falter my own beliefs, but its common among humans as we have the mental capacity for it. One could say that its all in our heads, but one can't disprove the possibility entirely.

 

[The Dreamer]

The definition of God was created by a human.
This is one of the major things that make me dislike theists.
Shitty arguments, if you're gonna argue for existence by a definition you're out of luck.

If this kind of logic applied to NarutoBase Temari would solo all of narutoverse.
If it applied to the world, the world would be flat.

Come back when you get a better argument, to be frank I know you're a troll, but I have no clue if you're trolling or not.
Either way your arguments suck ass.

All definition is made by people. Wether definition is right or wrong depends on it being logical. Now the definition I told you is pure logic, not some bumbleing. Let's say someone created a manga. They made an entire fictional world and laws the world works. It would be dumb to say that those laws of manga apply to its creator.
Same here. If a higher being made the whole reality and all its laws it's only natural for it to be beyond it's creation.
This is just simple logic. You can't use the concept of our reality to judge God as He is beyond reality. He as a creator of the universe doesn't play by its rules. Pure logic.

Now to the troll thing. I never troll. I actually only trolled once and it was in case of the user Kobak. One time thing. The proof of me not trolling is also the fact I was a part of a group that fought trolls.
You however are a different story. Don't make me remember the thread you made calling atheists illogical in wich you layed out arguments so bad I, a religious person, had to defend atheists. You proved right there that your understanding of science, religion and atheism is extremely low.

Also I'm not sure why I am even talking to you as I was talking to that guy.

All I know is that if an omniscient, omnipotent all-loving perfect God were real, he would be concerned with more important things than what people do in their beds and with whom and if they ate pork during Lent/Sabbath.

No. Einstein didn't want to be labeled as anything in specific. He gave countless quotes that he is neither an atheist nor a religious person. He admired pantheism but didn't want to define himself as one. He stated multiple times that he believes the universe works on a straight set of laws wich are too complex to be a product of mere chance. He believed in a higher force but not in a personal god. Also he was more of a humanist than a naturalist. Point is he believed a higher force governs the universe.
And the thing about Gods evidence would lead us to the topic of religions themselves. We're here talking about the existence of God and wether science and religion are opposing forces. If we're doing this stay on topic.
Although there really is no point in talking to you any more. Since you didn't notice, I never intended to take part in this debate and only jumped in when a person would make such a critical mistake like you when you said religion and science oppose each other.
I already layed out the reasons why they aren't but you keep repeating your nonsense. You say completely unrelated statements to my arguments and keep distorting my words. You fit Caliburns description perfectly. You make up your own image of god that has nothing to do with him and you line by it constantly repeating all the fallacies and keep contradicting yourself. The example of this is your reply to the fact science shows how it happened while religion shows why it happened. To this you say "exactly you can't prove wich didn't happen".
ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING???
Science explain how things happen. Religion explains why it happens. How do you not understand what I said. In order to explain it further I would have to go off topic so I won't.
Simple example. How are we here? Science answers. Why are we here? Religion answers.
I really don't plan on spending any more time repeating myself when you obviously don't even understand what I am saying.

 

[Sasuke2]

Science doesn't disprove God's existence; in fact, it's opposite. If you conjunct religious beliefs (I recommend the Quran as it hasn't been altered and contains scientific scriptures) and science discoveries. I'll just copy few documents and reference them:

To prove God's existence, you would need 4 things found in our universe:

1). Eternal force that isn't involved within the time and space.
2). Force found everywhere - omnipresent.
3). All powerful force - omnipotent.
4). Force possessing all knowledge - omniscient.

Heisenberg concludes that all freed electrons behave as if they were influenced by a force isn't found in the universe. In a signal travels farther than light Malcolm W. Browne, a force was connecting two freed electrons & proved to be eternal, was present within our time, yet has involvement within our universe's time and space. Here you go - An eternal force proved by science.

Every particle in the universe is connected to this eternal force, which can be found in stars, light, radiation. This means this force is found everywhere, making it omnipresent. Number 2 that science proves God's existence.

In experiments conducted by Russian scientists found that laser photons knew when DNA molecules was added into the vacuum. The photons collected around DNA strand and began to change the order of the DNA to what it desired. After the laser was turned off and excess photons remained in position resembling the DNA for over 22 minutes. There you go - omnipotent confirmed by science.

Physicist Roger Vogelsang found within his STI device, that not only this force can communicate but can read thoughts and know all things in the past and future. There you go - omniscient proven by science.

Reference:

You must be registered for see links

Now all you need to do is, basically read the Quran that states how God is timeless, is all knowing, is all-powerful. Not necessarily the Quran, the bible and Torah will say the same thing.

Quran is anything but scientific. Correct me if I'm wrong, but education is quite poor in Islamic countries. Don't have me make a list of non-scientific claims in the Quaran.

 

[Amaterasu]

You can prove that God exists, but you can't prove that it does not exist...

 

[Sasuke2]

You can prove that God exists, but you can't prove that it does not exist...

Be our guest then and do so, you will become the most famous person in history.

 

[Amaterasu]

Be our guest then and do so, you will become the most famous person in history.

Looks like you've got some hatred towards religious U_U

 

[sasori345]

The appearance of the universe from nowhere and nothing, and its subsequent assembling of itself into everything we know, is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present. Therefore, any attempts to "prove" it happened that way by performing laboratory experiments designed, executed and interpreted by an intelligent being (often thousands of them) fall flat.

 

[Strict]

You must be registered for see links

This is how all religions were founded.

 

[ministerC4]

All definition is made by people. Wether definition is right or wrong depends on it being logical. Now the definition I told you is pure logic, not some bumbleing. Let's say someone created a manga. They made an entire fictional world and laws the world works. It would be dumb to say that those laws of manga apply to its creator.
Same here. If a higher being made the whole reality and all its laws it's only natural for it to be beyond it's creation.
This is just simple logic. You can't use the concept of our reality to judge God as He is beyond reality. He as a creator of the universe doesn't play by its rules. Pure logic.

Now to the troll thing. I never troll. I actually only trolled once and it was in case of the user Kobak. One time thing. The proof of me not trolling is also the fact I was a part of a group that fought trolls.
You however are a different story. Don't make me remember the thread you made calling atheists illogical in wich you layed out arguments so bad I, a religious person, had to defend atheists. You proved right there that your understanding of science, religion and atheism is extremely low.

Also I'm not sure why I am even talking to you as I was talking to that guy.

That was a quote which I already established at the end of the thread.
People confused the image for words I had wrote.

It's literally an image, you can even right-click it.:|

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Shunsin no Shisui]

It is genuinely difficult to prove the existence of an ultimate creator that is in control of everything living or dead, and which is known as his creation. He is neither male nor female, does not beget nor was born since these qualities are associated with the creation and have nothing to do with him. Although he is referred to as a "Him" since the word has a masculine and superior connotation to it, and in a way also makes it easy for people when referring to God. But as I say, it is difficult to prove his existence because in order to do so, some work needs to be carried out.

To begin with, one must acquire the correct data or information(consisting of both fact and opinion) that can serve as evidence to prove God's existence. The information must then be analyzed and understood carefully while being applied to different instances and works almost like solving a jigsaw puzzle. The person investigating must then come up with various yet brief hypothesis or theories which are prepared to be verified. Along with this, more information about God's existence needs to be thoroughly researched until it reaches suitable reasoning and makes perfect. All of these steps need to be performed together and not necessarily in chronological order. Good luck to all of you attempting to research and heading towards concluding with whatever results you may end up with.