I’ll ignore all the interim posts and just addresss the original: Since science cannot prove/disprove God exists, the rational person must proceed as if he doesn’t. If one agrees that there is no proof for something, one must assume that it is not true. For example, I can tell you all day long that the Ghost of Elvis lives in my toilet tank. Maybe I start a movement and have thousands of people convinced that it is so. How bout I write a book and have people study it, and become convinced through my printed word? None of this is proof. And clearly, the burden is on the person making the assertion. For myself, I would be pleased if there was one, and he could somehow show that all the suffering we do was for some justifiable end, it would be comforting. I would also like to beleive that I will go somewhere after my human body expires. But I have no evidence that this is so. I proceed is if there is no god, and live by a rational moral code, derived from what I see as my nature as a human and a man. Should there turn out to be one, and should he ask that I justify my disbelief, I can only quote Russell “You didn’t give me enough evidence!”
"You have faith that eventual science will find the facts necessary to prove the evolution theory as evolution fact. Since scientific laws today do not support the evolutionary theory. "
Excuse me?? Are we in presence of a creationist? Evolution has been proved by fossil records beyond any reasonable doubt. It takes a very strong capacity of denial to refuse to accept this.
Can you tell me what do you believe hasn’t been proved by science in the evolutionary theory?
The ignorance of some people is amazing. How did everything that is here, get here? How did the universe get created? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did everything come about? there has to be a God. How else can you explain it?
I think a better thread would be “Why Religious Debates Suck”. While this thread has not been too bad, there are many reasons why I, and others, avoid such discussions.
For one, whose mind are you going to change? When everyone is trying to change everybody else’s mind, no one is going to compromise their own beliefs and back down. The conversation would be pointless for the person that backs down, thus no one ever does. (How can you convince someone to believe what you do when you’re changing yourself?)
So to enter a discussion like this, you shouldn’t be going into it with the idea of, “I’m right. They’re wrong. I need to show them the light.” I think a much better philosophy for discussions like this would be, “Let’s see what we can learn from each other, or at least sharpen our own defense of what we believe.”
This stems from the major source of anguish I derive from these arguments - close-mindedness. I think, whatever “side” you’re on, you need to understand that there is a possibility, no matter how slim, that you don’t have 100% of the picture correct, so acting like you do is folly. Some will say that religion is a personal decision, so you can’t be close-minded about something that’s your choice. Fine. If it’s such a “personal” decision, stay out of these discussions, as your personal decision has no effect on mine. (If this philosophy of religion as a personal thing is taken.)
And if you’re completely correct about the existence of God (be it true or false), then write a book and set everybody straight. While some small pockets of mentally challenged people will not believe you no matter what you tell them, I guarantee you that if you have everything figured out and proven, then you’ll be the most famous person to ever live.
This is an age-old question that has been debated endlessly before, without sufficient conclusion. This fact alone is an argument for both sides. On one hand, if we’ve been trying to prove God for a million years, yet we can’t, then he must not be there. On the other hand, this also displays an inherent need for an answer (be it Christianity, atheism, or worshipping Anna Kournikova) like a need for food and water.
And close-minded atheists piss me off as much as close-minded Bible-thumpers.
Okay, back to the bickering. 
Hey Goldberg – “The ignorance of some people is amazing. How did everything that is here, get here? How did the universe get created? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, how did everything come about? there has to be a God. How else can you explain it?”
You don’t have to immediately jump to the supernatural every time you can’t figure something out. It wasn’t so long ago that we didn’t understand disease, or lightning. Now we do. Over time, I think we will come much closer to a real understanding of our universe, and how it is put together. Let’s give ourselves a little credit here. We did go from radio to the net in less than 100 years, right? From the Wright Bros to the moon? Science is still in its infancy. Maybe there is a god. But there are worse things than not knowing. BTW – I like your posts with the lifts.
Ross McMahon: But Ross, you must have reasons for not believing. What are they?
Huck: You said,“[T]he rational person…as if he dosen’t exist”. Also - according to your logic - if there is no disproof of something I must proceed that it is true. In addition, you have no proof that htere is no life after death so then you must proceed that it’s true.
The question is: are there better reasons to believe God exists or doesn’t?
Your Ghosts of Elvis analogy is weak for the basic reason that you provide no reason for believing that it’s true.
You also speak of suffering. I assume that you think that is a bad thing, right? If there are bad things there must be good things, correst? If so, there must be a law to differentiate between the two. If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver.
Restless: What do you suggest created the universe?
Your assertion that evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt is simply untrue. Even atheistic scientists don’t believe it or are at least skeptical. Here are some quotes:
In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism for evelutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was, NO. Participants at the symposium were all evolutionists. They recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Eden of MIT:
What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense. Sutherland,138
Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse’ has made no secret off his skepticism" "What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probablity of dust carried by the wind reproducing Duer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probabilityof copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge int it. Grasse’ 104
And on and on…
"Restless: What do you suggest created the universe? "
I don’t. And I don’t have to present any answers in order to dismiss irrational creationist theories
"Your assertion that evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt is simply untrue. Even atheistic scientists don’t believe it or are at least skeptical. "
So all the fossil records of all known stages of mankind evolution are what? Fake? Are you trying to tell me the hearth is 6000 years old because that’s the number you get if you add up all the lifespans of the generations mentioned in the bible? It has been proven as much as it can be, creacionism has nothing on it’s side but an old book that has been twisted a million times, so what are you going to believe?
And Jared, what does it matter if no one gets changed? We’re trying to debate things and if you don’t like it, just stay away from the discussion. I’m not concerned if you think this is valid or productive. What did your criticism contributed to our knowledge?Do you have any thoughts on this? Are you an evolutionarist or a creacionist? Do you think God can be proven to exist? Or that it needs to be? etc,etc…
Restless, I was offering reasons why many of us do, in fact, stay away from these discussions. I didn’t say that the entire thread or topic is not productive or valid, but that some people approach it with a futile mindset. I just don’t get why some people do get involved.
And as far as it matters if no one’s minds get changed, then I must ask of those that are trying to change others’ minds, why the hell do you do it?
My biggest problem is with those that offer one line explanations and expect that to close the case. Restless, you don’t do this. You actively combat opposing viewpoints, which is good, in that you’re putting forth effort. However, I often get the sense (I could be wrong) that you are set in your world view (of religion, politics, etc.) and that you aren’t going to change. Thus, you wouldn’t grow, either, if that were your mindset. Just an observation. I’m more than willing to be corrected, and hoping that I will be.
And, as far as my opinons on these matters, the opposite could be said of me, and done so in a negative way, if one so chose. My willingness to entertain thoughts contrary to my beliefs could easily be seen as weakness of mind. I see it as my way of actually fortifying what beliefs I do attempt to hold on to.
Jared,
“However, I often get the sense (I could be wrong) that you are set in your world view (of religion, politics, etc.) and that you aren’t going to change. Thus, you wouldn’t grow, either, if that were your mindset. Just an observation. I’m more than willing to be corrected, and hoping that I will be.”
I guess I would say that your feeling is not too far from the truth in some matters. In this one I’m certainly not open to the whole creationist argument because I need some kind of logical argumentation to make change my views on something like this amnd I was never offered none.
And I forgot to add that arguing with the goal of changing anyones mindset in mind is quest doomed to fail. I’m not trying to bring anyone to this side, although I certainly hope that I can contribute. And for the record, all this flaming wars on the “political” threads served to help me understand the typical pro war american and his/her motivations a lot better. It doesn’t mean I aprove their ways, or that I’m now pro war, but I learned a lot anyway.
Zeppelin,
I would like to hear how you explain all the fossil records that show all the transitional hominid fases that occured during the past? Are you implying that god created a human that didn’t change since the times of Adam and Eve? What role does this evidence play in there?
Thanks
Restless, after reading several of the political flamewars, I’m actually scared to imagine your perception of the average American pro-war citizen (as an American citizen myself).
Americans must be difficult to understand, as the same people that uphold truth, justice, democracy, etc. will just as easily denigrate our leaders and tell you exactly the kind of filthy scumbags we think they are. This dichotomy, and others, leads to false perceptions and categorizations of most Americans. The best categorization I can give is that we’re a little of everything - basically mutts.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand, and your most recent comment about it. (The lack of a logical argument for a supreme being.) I’m not sure what’s more logical to me - that there was an omnipotent being who said “Let there be a big bang” or all this stuff just showing up on its own. Both of them sound ridiculous in their own way.
Hey Restless,
What do you believe to be proved in the fossil records? The fosil record shows many changes of men through the ages (adaptation) but no where do you see one species become a whole different species of the type that would have had to happen for evoultion to occur. This is the point on which Darwin swore would prove him to be correct but as of this date has not happened.
Here is a good read for you, take look at if your interested: The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution
Hank Hanegraaff has written volumes on the subject.
Oh yeah, I am a creationist and I do belive in God, clearly stated if you couldn’t guess by now
Phatman, I’ll check your link and here’s one for you:
I will focus only on earth.
Ive got a big problem with the ever-recurrent probability calculations. First of all, it always seems like a one shot deal, which it is not. Each organism that breeds is allowed at least one dice throw to allow DNA evolution to take place (or stay at the same level) at each breeding cycle. Nobody factors this in. They absolutely need to. Heres why:
Remember you only need one replicator molecule and youre off. After that, its just a question of time.
An example. Take an Escherichia (sp?) Coli bacteria (yeah, not primal soup stuff, but stay along), the friendly bacteria you have millions and millions of copies in your own gut. Under optimal conditions, it duplicates once every 8 minutes. Lets say we are in a non-optimum setting, and it reproduces once every 16 minutes. Well, after 24 hours, you have 90 doublings of the same bacteria. That`s 32 850 doublings in a year. 100 years, it is 3 285 000 opportunities to have DNA replicate.
And Im not even counting what the "baby" copies do themselves on top of that. And Im not talking about its smaller predecessors. Or virii (viruses), which is probably the fastest spreader around.
My point is, in lowerlevel life forms, you have many many many opportunities for DNA to propagate in a small amount of time.
And each copy/baby becomes another ancestor from who the same doubling/evolving laboratory can start anew.
Please factor that. Over a couple of millions of years, with organisms doubling ever so often (until ecosystem limits), you`ve got more and more and more units that can multiply/evolve/mutate with each cyle.
Idem for mutations.
With all that scrambling and copying, you`ll get an error every now and then, and/or environmentally induced mutation. Guess what, if it allows the organism to stay functional and competitive, it goes down in history.
These random changes, plus enough time, plus many opportunities to propagate DNA (short cycles) gives you TONS of opportunities to have evolution take place. With an astronomical number of small organisms over the surface of the earth, evolution of life, over enough time, is mathematically almost inevitable, IMHO.
You only need one viable replicator molecule. And, primal soup settings, with enough time, will wind up there too. Hey, were talking millions of years here! You`re bound to hit the jackpot eventually.
Combine that with natural selection and its not too long you have specialisation of structures that pop up in the historical timeline and you end up with our current ecosystem, specially if you factor in that organisms rarely regress to their origins as time passes. Rather the contrary, the evole in a more specialised niche.
And it is where we are now. And its probably not finished at all. We can tweak it too in far lesser time. Talk about taking control of ones future. To stop being totally the victim of randomness. Excellent.
PHATMANL:
Anyways I really enjoyed the debate, you have a keen mind and I get the feeling you have done this a time or two before
Thanks! Flattery will get you nowhere with me! 
J/K
Actually, I did not have the chance to extend this debate quite often at all.
Rare is the person that can sustain assaults against his beliefs and/or tolerate difference in views of everything. Specially if you fall into uncertain territory that is easy prey to fears and free-for-all potential, like feelings, spirituality and/or religion. Asides brains/nerds, engineers and not-bucked thinkers, the average joe is actually a, well, YAWN, for these types of conversations. Hearing one yak about what he/she feels (sensory experience depth) all day gets predictible and boring after a short while.
There`s a limit at how much times you can hear someone say he likes bathing in the sun or loves his doing this or that. Well, assuming s/he brings nothing new each time and/or without anecdotes.
I dig good working minds. So sue me. LOL.
If I depended on the average joes output for intellectual stimulation, Id be the equivalent of mind-frigid, so to say. I wont vouch for the pyramid structure of society, but it is probably not an accident why the elite is few at the top and separated in almost all important aspects (views of life, priorities, thinking, mental flexibility, etc) than the ground floor types. Its more crowded at the bottom, but, oh well, you take what you want and try to find your quality equals/blood brothers. That alone is a quest in life.
This forum is cool because there`s a good solid baseline level of intelligence flowing freely and usually with a strong spine, so to say.
As for my views, in short, nothing that miraculous. Its just that I am really stubborn and skeptic, and before I let any kind of data become an integral part of my OS` (operating system, i.e. brain), I field-test it in many settings (contexts), and cross-check it for consistency with my pre-existing notions.
Like math formula or equation, if it hold up (true) to a good number of samples, I adopt it. My posts on this thread are actually a chain built link by link. A couple of years back, it would not be so lengthy.
This forum is cool because there`s a good solid baseline level of intelligence flowing freely and usually with a strong spine, so to say.
Bad choice of words. Correct so to say by metaphorically speaking. You get the idea.
here is a thought…
its been pointed out that science is evolving rapidly.
DAN C - what if your science proves god exists and finds a way to reach heaven by means of perhaps only a door to walk through? maybe we have been sent here to find a way out? look at us!!! what is it that drives us to know more? maybe instinctivly we know there is a way out. back into heaven where we belong. maybe this is the punishment for eating that damn apple! what happens when we have figured it all out?
for the rate of advancement of knowledge (presumeably exponential) and lets say x, (where x = all there is to know), when will (obtained knowledge = x)???
i ponder this often. is it impossible? if time is infinate when did it start? and if it never started than it never is/was, rather an illusion of what is coined as a “timeline” but more so one continuous loop. look around you, everything that exsists is a cycle. if you can believe that everything is finite, then you can conceive that it is possible to “learn everything.” perhaps not solely as one person but as a society. then what?
honestly people, think about these things. when i do i cant help but feel like god is looking down on me and laughing, with me.
feelings, thoughts, DAN C- ill go a few rounds with ya, rob h
If one believes in a deity simply because “how else could we have gotten here?”, how does that person explain that deity’s existence? What is that deity composed of? In order for a now to exist there must have been a distinct beginning, why explain it with something else that doesn’t have a beginning? I know my comments are vague and generalized, but I am trying to stay away from beating a dead horse with arguments already posed by others earlier in this thread. I don’t even need to get into creationism vs evolutionism. If two groups of the same species of animal were segregated for hundreds of years yet continued to live on and adapt to their different surroundings via natural selection, is it so hard to believe that when reunited the two would be in fact different species? If creationism is true, the creator was very lazy and used the same basic template for all creatures, and didn’t bother to remove major deficiencies such as a shared food intake/windpipe. What would have caused this creator to not remove the vestigal organs / remnants of formerly useful features? There is only one reason to believe in a deity - someone told you to. I apologize for offending anyone here, these are just my beliefs. I don’t consider believers stupid, I think they’re otherwise intelligent people who have been misinformed.