God's Existence

[[Lsrcr]Oggy]

Basically i have read this thread today.
Oggy I must ask you that saying god doesn't exist is not a simple thing that at one time you said god doesn't exists and other you will say that god doesn't exists. So basically you accepted that some things that science cannot explain but reason you gave is Due to lack of technology Are you srs? However advance our technology is it can't explain all the facts of nature who born first human being , When is your death coming, Who made water , mountains?
Even anyone can't explain this.
And as you said that i don't beleive in god's existence I would like to ask you some questions.
Q1. Did you never worshipped god?
Q2. Have you ever been thankful for god for an unexpected event?
Q3. In difficult times, hope that never comes in your life,You never begged anything from god?
Even i don't have facts that god exists but saying that god doesn't exists for jus a reason that science is everything isn't a proper fact.

Spoiler: show

I would like to read your next reply quoting my lines.

The burden of proof always lies in the hands of the believer. And yes, lack of technology is the reason for all the unexplained things. As I replied to your previous post, these things you mentioned have already been explained by science. Anyway,

1) I used to worship God when I was a kid because everyone told me that there's a God but I grew up and realized that there isn't as there's no proof of his existence.
2) Luck is a game of odds and probability. God is not responsible for luck.
3) When I was a believer, I would pray for God during my difficult times but since I became an atheist now, I don't.

As I said, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the believer. Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

So basically you said that luck is the factor for all your good as well as bad events. Well anyone of us do not know about god's existence but saying that luck is the factor doesn't conclude as all things/facts cannot be discovered by science. And as you said you don't pray to god now. You had easily answered that you don't worshipped god now. Don't you visit to temples with family? You never do prayers in school/colledges ? In future you will not worship god ever before any good event going to be happened in your life (as we all Indians do). You will get to know and you will worship god in future if you will face hard situations (Nvm hopr that never come).

Then what would you say about Mahabharata and Ramayana ?
You think these are just beliefs?
There are evidences of these on museums written by the ancient people.
Basically,I don't want to post here but I can't control myself..

As jila said you can't regret the beliefs and evidences which are followed from years. Yes you have right to beleive in the existence and nonexistence of god . No question in that. But do accept that there are facts that science can't proove.

Spoiler: show

I think we should end the topic as there is enough discussions. Nvm I am still ready if there will be further discussions but that will just repeat the facts that already mentioned.

If you look closely there's no such thing as luck. A die thrown has to land on one face of its faces. When science develops the technology of monitoring every slightest details, it would be able to predict exactly what would happen next, it's already done in the smallest of scales but we need more time to apply it to higher levels.

You won a lottery, is it because of your luck? Well, the prize has to fall on one of the tickets printed. If the winner is chosen by drawing balls, then the physics behind the movement and position of the balls decides which balls comes out, not God. But to you, you won the lottery but thousands didn't. If that's what you call luck, then luck is just an illusion.

"Followed for years" is not an evidence. There is a logical explanation behind everything and if science can't prove it with the technology that we have today, then one day it will with sufficient technological support. I don't think this discussion should end so I'll always be here.

[Jaker]

Spoiler: show

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim.

Oh yeah? Can you please provide me with observable evidence of a change of kinds, i.e. a monkey changing into a human, I guess? Any, please. Something I can observe, that demonstrates one kind changing into another.

First of all, monkeys don't change into humans. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor who lived a few million years ago. That ancestor looked more like the present day monkeys in appearance so no, monkeys don't and didn't change into humans. You can observe the evolution of RNA in retroviruses due to mutation. Elephants were hunted and killed by poachers for their tusks and now some elephants are born without tusks. They are fertile and will reproduce. Obviously, they will not be killed for their tusks so they'll survive while the others won't, making a world with elephants without tusks. This is natural selection in action. Dark and white moths is another example. There are many other examples of evolution that you can observe today.

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Do you really think the fossils of the "transition species" work in favor of evolution?

Yeah.

from simple to complex beings like humans.

Wow, that's quite a jump. There has to be a LOT of specific fossils that would convince me.

Of course. Whether it would convince you or not, depends on your intelligence.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution.

So, what you're saying, once upon a time, there was information that once was useless, but during a fortunate (for us) turn of events, "new information" came together with this "older information" to a place, accumulated and came to be the most complex and coherent phenemenon of biology in the world, that enables the entire human race to exist? Am I wrong?


Also, what parts of our DNA are useless?

It doesn't enable human race to exist. These are basically called introns. They're more like the vermiform appendix which is completely useless but exists as a side effect of evolution. It is found that 90% of human DNA is junk. Without these, transcription and translation would have been a lot easier and more efficient. You'd say that it's because God didn't want us to have too much advantage over other species, right? Well these are found in all organisms so they pose disadvantages in all organisms, so why would he even bother?

If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago.

I don't trust the method of radioactive carbon dating. Why? Simply put, there are examples of e.g. the shell of a living snail being dated as being 2000 years old. There are numerous other examples. Therefore, I don't take into account any claims that mention "millions and billions of years".

Yes, radiocarbon dating cannot be done accurately on freshwater mussels, but that's all about it. These mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. For instance, they could just compare the amount of C-14 left in a freshly killed snail with the data from radioactive carbon dating. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. The idea of dating a fossil by counting the amount of radioactive elements left is a brilliant invention. Also, do you know that C-14 dating can only be done on fossils younger than some thousand years and other datings are done by measuring the amount of other radioactive elements?

Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

I guess because we changed slightly over the course of time. I mean, the human kind varies to a great extent in physical properties from continent to continent. Or maybe imo because god created people on each continent with physical characteristics that are the most optimal for the area they live in. I believe in micro-evolution ( changes within the same kind) because I can observe it, but I definitely do not believe in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution in long periods of time results in macro-evolution over long periods of time, duh.

Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor who lived a few million years ago.

How and why did they split (from the common ancestor) in the first place?

You can observe the evolution of RNA in retroviruses due to mutation.

But that's still RNA, and those are still retroviruses. After all, this is not a very good example for what I asked you, since retroviruses aren't living organisms.

Elephants were hunted and killed by poachers for their tusks and now some elephants are born without tusks. They are fertile and will reproduce. Obviously, they will not be killed for their tusks so they'll survive while the others won't, making a world with elephants without tusks. This is natural selection in action. Dark and white moths is another example.

But they're still elephants, right? They're still moths, right? I asked you for evidence of a change of kinds (that I can observe), not changes within a kind.

Yeah.

Can you name a few of these "transition species"?

Whether it would convince you or not, depends on your intelligence.

Don't worry, I evaluate evidence thoroughly before I choose to believe in it. So far, I have found no credible evidence.

They're more like the vermiform appendix which is completely useless but exists as a side effect of evolution.

The appendix is not a vestigial organ. It is proven that it plays an important role in our immune system. Even my high school textbook teaches that. I thought school textbooks only contain proven facts?

Micro-evolution in long periods of time results in macro-evolution over long periods of time, duh.

Lol. What an amibitious statement. How can you be so sure that this logic works? I'd believe that if I could see it. But I don't have thousands and millions and billions of years to check for myself, so I'd rather not resort to faith in that regard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[[Lsrcr]Oggy]

Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor who lived a few million years ago.

How and why did they split (from the common ancestor) in the first place?

It could be a variety of reasons like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc as we're not talking about one character here. Different characters evolved by different means.

You can observe the evolution of RNA in retroviruses due to mutation.

But that's still RNA, and those are still retroviruses. After all, this is not a very good example for what I asked you, since retroviruses aren't living organisms.

Whether they're organisms or not, is a subject of ongoing debate. Anyway, there are many organisms which use RNA as their genetic material. They clearly show how genetic materials evolve naturally.

Elephants were hunted and killed by poachers for their tusks and now some elephants are born without tusks. They are fertile and will reproduce. Obviously, they will not be killed for their tusks so they'll survive while the others won't, making a world with elephants without tusks. This is natural selection in action. Dark and white moths is another example.

But they're still elephants, right? They're still moths, right? I asked you for evidence of a change of kinds (that I can observe), not changes within a kind.

They're now elephants without tusks. Would you still call them elephants if they were subjected to many more changes and resulted in looking entirely different? Multiple changes in characters cause speciation.

Yeah.

Can you name a few of these "transition species"?

Refer to this page.

They're more like the vermiform appendix which is completely useless but exists as a side effect of evolution.

The appendix is not a vestigial organ. It is proven that it plays an important role in our immune system. Even my high school textbook teaches that. I thought school textbooks only contain proven facts?

Well, that's something new to me. My textbooks didn't teach me that, probably because it wasn't widely accepted or there isn't enough proofs. People who had this organ removed do fine without it. It causes more harm than good. Anyway, there's no point here talking about it.

Micro-evolution in long periods of time results in macro-evolution over long periods of time, duh.

Lol. What an amibitious statement. How can you be so sure that this logic works? I'd believe that if I could see it. But I don't have thousands and millions and billions of years to check for myself, so I'd rather not resort to faith in that regard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's common sense. If something slowly changes to something else, it would change significantly after a lot of time. How is this so complex? You can even apply mathematics to this.

[Geri]

This has been kinda turned into a personal discussion topic, so i will just reply to the main question as a reply to give a little refresh.
I will talk for Christianity mostly, because i know that Islam is a sensitive religion on this community.
If you just think about it, let it think for one second, what if there is no god? I know that you'd be disappointed, but just think it. And then just think the creativity of the people creating such stories, just like they created millions of other tales. It connects, it could just be a creation. For this, we will go a bit to a small "belief" that is made lately, its called flat-earthers. These people believe that the earth is flat. Their arguments are completely nonsense. So do you guys believe that the earth is flat? No, but those people do. Some of you, however, believe in god, its the same as those people believing that the earth is flat. Arguments which no one can understand, but to their minds it makes a sense, because if it doesn't then we will get disappointed on our selves.
Just watch some videos of flat earthers explaining why the earth is flat, and then think you explaining about religion. Religion got a high number of people, especially Christianity, and that's why its more respected and made lots of fame in the globe. However, it doesn't really change from the flat earth belief.

To sum it up, don't believe things and don't do things without getting your mind deep into it and thinking always the opposite, no matter what it is. You need to see through different perspectives to find the answer. If you just like to do the rituals and enjoy the culture go ahead, but remember that in this world, you are completely on your own and you need to fight a lot to make it through, looking at the sky is not a solution.

[Immortal]

nice bump update brothers

[Jaker]

This has been kinda turned into a personal discussion topic, so i will just reply to the main question as a reply to give a little refresh.
I will talk for Christianity mostly, because i know that Islam is a sensitive religion on this community.
If you just think about it, let it think for one second, what if there is no god? I know that you'd be disappointed, but just think it. And then just think the creativity of the people creating such stories, just like they created millions of other tales. It connects, it could just be a creation. For this, we will go a bit to a small "belief" that is made lately, its called flat-earthers. These people believe that the earth is flat. Their arguments are completely nonsense. So do you guys believe that the earth is flat? No, but those people do. Some of you, however, believe in god, its the same as those people believing that the earth is flat. Arguments which no one can understand, but to their minds it makes a sense, because if it doesn't then we will get disappointed on our selves.
Just watch some videos of flat earthers explaining why the earth is flat, and then think you explaining about religion. Religion got a high number of people, especially Christianity, and that's why its more respected and made lots of fame in the globe. However, it doesn't really change from the flat earth belief.

To sum it up, don't believe things and don't do things without getting your mind deep into it and thinking always the opposite, no matter what it is. You need to see through different perspectives to find the answer. If you just like to do the rituals and enjoy the culture go ahead, but remember that in this world, you are completely on your own and you need to fight a lot to make it through, looking at the sky is not a solution.

"It connects, it could just be a creation".

Yeah, you're right, it could be just a creation. Yet throughout your reply you're talking as if it indeed is a creation. Make up your mind. No, it's not the same as believing that the earth is flat. It may be from your point of view, but does that mean that something doesn't exist? That's a very egocentric way of thinking. You could say that a lot of people don't believe in God - sure, that's fine, but there's also a large amount of people that do believe in God. Is that because they've been indoctrinated? Maybe, maybe not. You can't know why people believe in God unless you go through an experience which clears up all the doubts regarding that matter.

"Arguments which no one can understand, but to their minds it makes sense".
Like I said, the idea of God cannot truly be comprehended by scientific means. There's a lot more to experiencing such things than just our senses. You simply cannot explain religion and God to a person that's "closed" for such discussions. If someone has a negative stance towards God and religion to start with, there's no way you can have a constructive and fruitful discussion about it with them.

[[Lsrcr]Oggy]

Haha

[Jaker]

Haha

Exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't have anything useful to add, don't bother posting.

[[Lsrcr]Oggy]

Haha

Exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't have anything useful to add, don't bother posting.

Oh I think I've already added enough.

[bassel_faw]

God exists