icy.... what you just said is an incorrect way of thinking known as Argument Ad Ignorantium, in that you stated since there is no proof of God's existence he simply does not exist....
There is also no proof of God's nonexistence so he therefore must exist
see it's flawed and makes you sound ignorant

__________________________

Yes God exist. If there wasn't God there wouldn't be us. (You)
God made the first people. Adam (I think i spell his name right) and Eve. And he made all living things. God also made light. If there wasn't light, how could we see? If God didn't exist nothing would be here. Cause living things make movies, video games, teen hut, and more non-living things. I hope this helps.

I believe that God could theoretically exist. However, there is no way for us to know for sure now, based on our technology and knowledge. The entire world as we know it can be explained almost completely; only two very puzzling things remain, being how chemical reactions in a collection of molecules can create thought, and how the universe began/was created. These could be answered by using God, but the answers could be without God. Basically, it makes more sense most of the time to use science, but it may not always be right.

There is no proof that he doesn't exist either... So what is your point?

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

I think it is obvious that no one here can prove that does or doesn't exist, if you disagree I would love to hear your argument...

exactly... that's what i was saying

________________________

Yeah honestly even though I'm not sure god exists I would prefer if he did. The thought of no god just leaves a big void with a big question mark in it.

i know...it's pretty scary to think about isn't it

______________________

KIA&SS wrote:

The third on the list is named a 'theory'. A theory by definition cannot be fact, and therefore can't be evidence.

Above is the first sentence on the link to Wikipedia. Again... a theory cannot be fact, and therefore can't be evidence.

Second paragraph of the 'Big Bang Evidence' link... Again... a theory cannot be fact, and therefore can't be evidence.

Definition of:the·o·ry

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


Definition of: con·jec·ture
Guess; speculation.


You have given no evidence with these links. You have only established that your Big Bang is indeed nothing but a theory cooked up by people who have nothing better to do.

Okay... First off, you've got your terminology wrong, we're using the scientific definition of theory here hun. You can't just start going around with a dictionary going I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS! unless you actually do your homework. The scientific definition of theory is: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." This means that your whole argument is invalid. So please before you make a giant rant on the internet, please please please just do a little homework first.

I may just be late to the party, but I wanted to throw that out there that I support this opinion

KIA&SS wrote:

It can incorporate facts and laws. But It can also incorporate inferences and Hypothesis.

You're so determined to disbelieve in the big bang that you're hopelessly arguing semantics and trying to find anything that could paint science in a negative light.

How about I show you the rest of the article?

In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Judging by your disinclination to believe in scientific theories, you should probably avoid ever going to the hospital. Whenever you go into surgery or are diagnosed, it's based upon scientific theories.

KIA&SS wrote:

In other words just because its a scientific theory does not mean it is evidence or fact.

Why do you keep saying a scientific theory isn't evidence or fact?
A scientific theory is MADE UP of evidence and facts; that's how scientists arrive at a theory.

You make it sound as though a scientific theory is something thought up by a bunch of intoxicated middle schoolers.
According to the AAAS, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

A scientific theory is something that has merit and authenticity.

KIA&SS wrote:

Both have scientific base and assumption base. Both creation and the Big Bang can also be considered religious by nature.

www .irc. org/article/177/
www .creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife. htm

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

I think this topic can be left up to personal interpretation, it can't be debated. The idea of faith in a bigger spirit is basically hope. You hope and trust that there is a god, but you can't prove it. No matter how hard you try it simply cannot be done. Proving there is no god is a lot easier. Everyone can believe what they want, but there is no proving it one way or another, that's just the way religion is.

Blind faith, this is what this is.

Did God create the universe as well and ever solar system, planet, star etc etc in it?

The Bible has been altered by the hand of man far too much for it to have happened as its told.

Laddergoat. wrote:

Did God create the universe as well and ever solar system, planet, star etc etc in it?

Does it really matter?

Laddergoat. wrote:

The Bible has been altered by the hand of man far too much for it to have happened as its told.

Individual passages, perhaps. However, the cardinal messages and principles of the Bible haven't been altered much from its original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek form.

I always felt my belief in G-d was not dependent on believing that the bible was in the inerrant word of G-d

I am absolutely dumbfounded about how arrogant and phenomenally narrow minded people can be on this site. Mother of god

I doubt that, as we are prone to massive exaggeration in our every day lives.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------



But are you calling the atheists narrow minded and arrogant or the religious folk? Because both sides can be both in the others eyes.

I've met ppl on both sides that are very narrow

everyone needs to do their own research to form their own opinion....i hate when people base their opinion on those of their friends

This is KIA not SS by the way

One can have a theory based off of facts and data and it not be truth.
One can have different views on what is fact and what is not fact.

Semantics. Everything is based off of semantics. You are a semantic in this world. Any debate you will have will have to be made up of semantics. Even those who claim to not use semantics use them.

Semantics are basically details.

Detail:
1. an individual or minute part; an item or particular.
2. particulars collectively; minutiae.

3. attention to or treatment of a subject in individual or minute parts: to postpone detail and concentrate on a subject as a whole.

4. intricate, finely wrought decoration.
5. any small section of a larger structure or whole, considered as a unit.
6.to relate or report with complete particulars; tell fully and distinctly.
7. to mention one by one; specify
8.to provide with intricate, finely wrought decoration

When one debates or discusses beliefs and opinions one gives details(semantics) about why they believe and why they have such an opinion.

Without details or semantics debates are nothing. You cannot win without them you can however lose without them.

Unless you are debating about differing beliefs then it is just an on going debate that usually cannot be won. But semantics and details play a huge part in this.

KIA

KIA&SS wrote:

Scientific Theory as defined by you:


Hypothesis
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Tentative
Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional:Uncertain; hesitant.


Inference
The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.


Premises
A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

Proposition
A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal.

Suggest
To insinuate or bring to mind.

Insinuate
To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example) gradually and insidiously.

Insidiously
Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner:
Intended to entrap; treacherous: insidious misinformation.
Beguiling but harmful; alluring:


It can incorporate facts and laws. But It can also incorporate inferences and Hypothesis.

In other words just because its a scientific theory does not mean it is evidence or fact.

You will note above I used the 'scientific definition of Theory' posted by someone else. I broke down exactly what those words defining it mean. Definitions are definitions and you can't change them just to make your theory look better then some other persons theory.

You're so determined to disbelieve in the big bang that you're hopelessly arguing semantics and trying to find anything that could paint science in a negative light.

You have no clue what I believe. Personally, I believe both God and the Big Bang are religious. Both are theory.

There is nothing wrong with science and I will never attempt to paint it negatively. Science is wonderful and I have no argument with actual true science. The Big Bang is not science. The Big Bang is the attempt of certain people (not all) in the scientific field to rationalize the beginnings of life.

They have no solid scientific proof of the Big Bang.
They have no scientific proof of God either.
Therefore both are based completely upon personal belief and so are religious, and not science.

Blind faith, this is what this is

You have blind faith every night when you go to sleep that you will wake up in the morning. People die in their sleep all the time. Everyone has blind faith in something. What you have blind faith in is personal choice.

Judging by your disinclination to believe in scientific theories, you should probably avoid ever going to the hospital. Whenever you go into surgery or are diagnosed, it's based upon scientific theories.

Again, I never said what I believe. What makes you so sure when you go to the doctor that he has diagnosed you correctly? There is something called misdiagnosing and it happens frequently.
I guess you and I both will have to take what the doctor says on blind faith wont we.

In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.

First sentence... Theories do not turn into facts.
Third sentence... They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. (You know what understandings means? That someone has faith in it. You know creative reflection means? They thought about it.)
Fourth sentence... They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.

Why do you keep saying a scientific theory isn't evidence or fact?

True, they incorporate some facts, laws, and logic. (I already covered hypotheses.) But that does not make their theory fact as this paragraph clearly states in the first line of what you showed me.


I can make a theory using some facts, scientific laws, and hypotheses and it can still be only my belief or even just a load of crud.
Like this site for example... www .velociraptors. info/

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

A scientific theory is something that has merit and authenticity.

Sometimes, but it can also be a load of bull. Such as if I was to ask based on your above definition by the AAAS who confirmed (let alone repeatedly) the Big Bang through observation? When has anyone observed through experiment an explosion create anything but a mess? Who was there to see the Big Bang happen? What facts?

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

It is no less nor more scientific then the Big Bang. They are both majorly religious.

Okay... First off, you've got your terminology wrong, we're using the scientific definition of theory here hun. You can't just start going around with a dictionary going I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS! unless you actually do your homework. The scientific definition of theory is: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." This means that your whole argument is invalid. So please before you make a giant rant on the internet, please please please just do a little homework first.

Perhaps you should read all my posts.
I don't care what you think. You can believe in Unicorns, Santa, Zeus, the rain god, or whatever you blasted want to.
Just don't try to shove your doctrines and religious garbage and lies down my throat. What matters to me is facts, and definitions. You can't change the definition to suit your religious propaganda. By definition the Big Bang is not a scientific fact but a religious spiel that a bunch of morons who wanted to create their own beginnings to life came up with while thinking creatively and calling it understanding and science.

Teach me science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Teach me the actual proven, provable science that is true and that can be observed.

Don't force your religious crud, that has no proof on me.


SS

if you think i'm (or anyone is) going to read all of that you are seriously mistaken