JGMU wrote:

But science is based on observation and by observation it can prove the big bang theory. But religion is based on belief and you can't use belief as proof.

JGMU wrote:

You can't use your belief that there is a sentiant creator to disprove the big bang theory but the big bang theory can disprove a sentiant creator.

gesler0811 wrote:


If science could prove or had proven the Big Bang Theory, it would be the Big Bang Law. The fact that it is still a 'theory' is indicative that it has never been proven.

Wosret wrote:



Not that I believe in god (because I by no means do) but I just can't watch such poor reasoning and say nothing. Did pluto not exist before we discovered it? I notice you say if it isn't physical, I am only aware of two states of existence, physical, and conceptual. However, because I am not aware of them does not make them non-existent.

Please explain why a state of existence other than the two said states cannot exist, without our being aware, if pluto was fully able to do so? Also, explain why it being physical matters? Do you consider fairies and dragons more likely to exist than ghosts? I don't, I consider them equally fictious.

Wosret wrote:


What of those that do not perport god to be physical or conceptual, but something entirely different,

Wosret wrote:


If ignorance of a physical object does not prevent it's existence, then why does ignorance of an other state of existence dissallow it's existence? What is the difference? Is it not the same to declaim one unknown non-existent then it is to declare another? Even one undefined and simple speculative?

For instance, I would consider something someone can up with in detail without evidence less likely to exist then I would something vague and undefined, left open ended, with extremely wide margines of error. The reason for this is simply the use of occam's razor. A speculation the makes the fewest assumption is more likely to be correct then one that makes numerous assumptions. For instance, the speculation "there existence alien life that is more intelligent than human beings" is more likely to be true then "there exists alien life that is more intelligent then human beings, that are orange and furry." The latter speculation is far less likely to be true because it makes specific and speculations without reason.

In both examples I am of course entirely in ignornt, but that isn't grounds for dissmissal. My reasoning must follow based on what I do know on the matter.

In this sense, I can say that it is less likely that there exists a state of existence that is the spiritual, than it is that there simply exists another state of existence that is besides the physical and the conceptual. You will need to outline a reason why this cannot be, or I don't see how your reasoning follows.

gesler0811 wrote:


But please explain to me how believing in God is lazier than not believing. I am very curious about the physical processes that went into the creation of the earth. It is something I plan to gladly research as time permits. Your arguments continue to disregard God right out of the gate. It's like you're not even willing to consider the possibility. I can gladly say I have considered both sides. Up until just a few years ago I considered myself an atheist.

I would argue that those who are only willing to consider one side and then disregard the other viewpoint simply based on their own bias to be the lazy ones.

Every argument you havre made so far hinges on a preconception that God does not exist.

First when you say God only exists if people believe in him, which clearly assumes that it is a given that God does not exist. Sort of like when you pose a hypothetical situation to somebody and you outline the conditions of the situation before they give you their reaction or answer.

Then you proceed to say it is lazy to believe in God, which makes no sense. Theists are searching for answers every bit as determinedly as atheists. This argument of yours also hinges on an assumption that God does not exist and therefore we are settling for that answer. If in fact God does exist then again your theory holds no water.

If you want to argue God does not exist, you need to start with a logical framework for an argument that does not inherently depend on God not existing. Do you just not understand this yet? BEcause it is getting really tiresome to keep repeating myself and pretty soon I am going to find a new topic to which to devote my attention.