Is god real...

[Born Hunter 17,910]

Lets not confuse faith and religion.... Religions like christianity have been changing their 'interpretations' of their religious literatures etc for hundreds of years when science just proves their old interpretation bollocks.

 

Faith you can't disprove, it's not like a scientific hypothesis which is based on fact which you would then challenge the validity of those facts to disprove the hypothesis...... there simply aren't any facts with faith by the very nature of it so it is impossible to dissprove. That is no reason to believe a 'God' exists though, no more than Santa or the Easter Bunny they are all figures of faith. I firmly believe the entire concept of God is a psycological survival mechanism which is why it is so strong in primitive cultures and gradually declines as science improves. You can't have an objective argument for and against the existance of a God because there are no facts for the God hypothesis to challenge the validity of.... it's impossible!

 

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

[Tam O'Void 297]

I presume it isn't the "belief" that Moses and the priest Phinehas,murdered the" christ (jesus/joshua) in the Tabernacle at the bottom of Mount Sinai thus stealing Aarrons' Right to the Priesthood that I could understand

who the fk was moses .. sounds like a west indian name to me

Moses of the Bible ,led the Israelites (JEWS) out of Egypt an Slavery .There is a belief he is the Historical..Akenaten son of the Egyptian king Amenhotep III and father of Tutankhamun (Jesus )..Simple

superman could have done that aswell ,and just about as believable ..

No he couldn't He never APPEARED until the 1930's way to late for the Exodus,saying that he could have stepped up to the Plate ..pre WW2.. :tongue2:

[poacher3161 1,766]

This is what I really don't understand a Christening can not be confused for anything other than a religious ceromany. At least with a wedding you can have a civil ceremony or non religious wedding even but you CAN'T have a non religious christening.

 

Sorry but to say you don't believe in god and to get your kids christend is a total contradiction.

The catholic schools in my daughters area insist that kids they take in are christend dosent matter if its c.of e or the catholic faith.

[Tam O'Void 297]

Lets not confuse faith and religion.... Religions like christianity have been changing their 'interpretations' of their religious literatures etc for hundreds of years when science just proves their old interpretation bollocks.

 

Faith you can't disprove, it's not like a scientific hypothesis which is based on fact which you would then challenge the validity of those facts to disprove the hypothesis...... there simply aren't any facts with faith by the very nature of it so it is impossible to dissprove. That is no reason to believe a 'God' exists though, no more than Santa or the Easter Bunny they are all figures of faith. I firmly believe the entire concept of God is a psycological survival mechanism which is why it is so strong in primitive cultures and gradually declines as science improves. You can't have an objective argument for and against the existance of a God because there are no facts for the God hypothesis to challenge the validity of.... it's impossible!

 

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

Do you not Agree the Human race ,Is Programmed with an inbuilt magnet to the Spititual being ...be it an Atom ..or "GOD" the creator

Can Evolution be REALLY proven by Scientist ...It's a Belief system...all the same ..Man thinks ,man makes a Educated assumption.. man dictates what test is right or wrong .. will we ever Really know

[Malt 379]

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

I was just throwing that into the conversation, it's not something I actually believing myself, I was just throwing a theory in to fit the facts but I can't see why you couldn't. The universe itself is most definitely the creator and definately omnipresent, what more could you want in an all powerful deity? Saying you can't call it god because it's 'science' is like saying you cant call a dog a dog because science describes it as canis lupus familiaris. What's in a name? It all comes back again to what you define 'god' as.

[paulus 26]

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

I was just throwing that into the conversation, it's not something I actually believing myself, I was just throwing a theory in to fit the facts but I can't see why you couldn't. The universe itself is most definitely the creator and definately omnipresent, what more could you want in an all powerful deity? Saying you can't call it god because it's 'science' is like saying you cant call a dog a dog because science describes it as canis lupus familiaris. What's in a name? It all comes back again to what you define 'god' as.

[Tam O'Void 297]

This is what I really don't understand a Christening can not be confused for anything other than a religious ceromany. At least with a wedding you can have a civil ceremony or non religious wedding even but you CAN'T have a non religious christening.

 

Sorry but to say you don't believe in god and to get your kids christend is a total contradiction.

The catholic schools in my daughters area insist that kids they take in are christend dosent matter if its c.of e or the catholic faith.

Catholic School = Catholics getting an Education ,why should they Admit NON - Catholics !!! this country

You don't go to the Swimming baths to play Table tennis... There is one near me That the MOSLEMS are getting in over CATHOLICS .WHY ? because of catchment Area !!! the councils are going Mad ..or are they ...Destroying the the set up by Stealth ..Power base moving .. I wonder...?

[Born Hunter 17,910]

Lets not confuse faith and religion.... Religions like christianity have been changing their 'interpretations' of their religious literatures etc for hundreds of years when science just proves their old interpretation bollocks.

 

Faith you can't disprove, it's not like a scientific hypothesis which is based on fact which you would then challenge the validity of those facts to disprove the hypothesis...... there simply aren't any facts with faith by the very nature of it so it is impossible to dissprove. That is no reason to believe a 'God' exists though, no more than Santa or the Easter Bunny they are all figures of faith. I firmly believe the entire concept of God is a psycological survival mechanism which is why it is so strong in primitive cultures and gradually declines as science improves. You can't have an objective argument for and against the existance of a God because there are no facts for the God hypothesis to challenge the validity of.... it's impossible!

 

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

Do you not Agree the Human race ,Is Programmed with an inbuilt magnet to the Spititual being ...be it an Atom ..or "GOD" the creator

Can Evolution be REALLY proven by Scientist ...It's a Belief system...all the same ..Man thinks ,man makes a Educated assumption.. man dictates what test is right or wrong .. will we ever Really know

 

Dude, I can't put this much more simply than this. Science is based on observations that we then consider facts which are then used objectively to create a hypothesis, over years of testing the facts a hypothesis becomes a theory and is considered part of modern science........ God is based on nothing more than faith, the same way kids believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy.

 

Evolution can be proven just as much a relativity, gravity or magnetism. But remember, to prove something absolutely, by definition you have to dissprove every other possible hypothesis. Which of course is impossible.

[paulus 26]

Lets not confuse faith and religion.... Religions like christianity have been changing their 'interpretations' of their religious literatures etc for hundreds of years when science just proves their old interpretation bollocks.

 

Faith you can't disprove, it's not like a scientific hypothesis which is based on fact which you would then challenge the validity of those facts to disprove the hypothesis...... there simply aren't any facts with faith by the very nature of it so it is impossible to dissprove. That is no reason to believe a 'God' exists though, no more than Santa or the Easter Bunny they are all figures of faith. I firmly believe the entire concept of God is a psycological survival mechanism which is why it is so strong in primitive cultures and gradually declines as science improves. You can't have an objective argument for and against the existance of a God because there are no facts for the God hypothesis to challenge the validity of.... it's impossible!

 

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

Do you not Agree the Human race ,Is Programmed with an inbuilt magnet to the Spititual being ...be it an Atom ..or "GOD" the creator

Can Evolution be REALLY proven by Scientist ...It's a Belief system...all the same ..Man thinks ,man makes a Educated assumption.. man dictates what test is right or wrong .. will we ever Really know

 

Dude, I can't put this much more simply than this. Science is based on observations that we then consider facts which are then used objectively to create a hypothesis, over years of testing the facts a hypothesis becomes a theory and is considered part of modern science........ God is based on nothing more than faith, the same way kids believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy.

 

Evolution can be proven just as much a relativity, gravity or magnetism. But remember, to prove something absolutely, by definition you have to dissprove every other possible hypothesis. Which of course is impossible.

well that cleared it up :laugh:

[scothunter 12,609]

Used to love listening to hitchens tip into the god squad. Come to think of Steven fry aswell. There a video on jewtube where the big gay joke rips into the catholic church and Anne wittocomb. They never stood a chance,

[Born Hunter 17,910]

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

I was just throwing that into the conversation, it's not something I actually believing myself, I was just throwing a theory in to fit the facts but I can't see why you couldn't. The universe itself is most definitely the creator and definately omnipresent, what more could you want in an all powerful deity? Saying you can't call it god because it's 'science' is like saying you cant call a dog a dog because science describes it as canis lupus familiaris. What's in a name? It all comes back again to what you define 'god' as.

 

Aye, I understand your point malt. I was simply saying that to change the definition of god to be the same as science is a huge cop out and a change of tune from 200 years ago. It was just my opinion like. It's just another reason you can't have an debate on the existance of God, if you can't define God precisely how the hell can you argue Gods existance?

 

It's so un bloody scientific!

[iworkwhippets 13,158]

Eh, varicose veins up to my piles, hump on my back, arhritic, hair gone, teeth gone, eyesight failing, bells palsy. weak bladder,

i will be glad when the good lord takes me

what day is it

Edited September 22, 2012 by iworkwhippets

[scothunter 12,609]

Lol

[riohog 5,928]

Malt raises an interesting point, define God? For me the only definition is an Intelligent being in control of all the Universe/Universes unexplainable by science. You can't call all the forces of nature or a grand unified theory God, because it's not, it's science. That's a bit of cop out for me, as bad as the religious lot changing their beliefes to fit science.

I was just throwing that into the conversation, it's not something I actually believing myself, I was just throwing a theory in to fit the facts but I can't see why you couldn't. The universe itself is most definitely the creator and definately omnipresent, what more could you want in an all powerful deity? Saying you can't call it god because it's 'science' is like saying you cant call a dog a dog because science describes it as canis lupus familiaris. What's in a name? It all comes back again to what you define 'god' as.

 

Aye, I understand your point malt. I was simply saying that to change the definition of god to be the same as science is a huge cop out and a change of tune from 200 years ago. It was just my opinion like. It's just another reason you can't have an debate on the existance of God, if you can't define God precisely how the hell can you argue Gods existance?

 

It's so un bloody scientific!

very true turn it on its head and prove there is no god !! .i dont go for the ultimate being thing , although i dont understand the scientific side of beings ,to me it is certainly a more realistic way of thinking

[Born Hunter 17,910]

The point I'm trying to make here is that you cannot have an objective & logical debate on the existance of God, it's impossible to do scientifically. You either have faith or you don't. Faith isn't a function of logic, it's just faith......