I agree with Monte that the totally closed biases from both sides are the wrong approach. Scientist are usually a bit less fanatic in defending their theories, accepting the fact they could be wrong or at least admitting there are things they cannot prove yet with the current scientific knowledge. Fanatic religious believers tend have more problems admitting there is a margin of error and they might be wrong: god exists and made everything, PERIOD.

I leave the possibility open for the existence of a God, I'll believe it when I have enough proof (I can picture myself in front of him after I die and going "ummmm, my bad, why were you hiding all this time,but it's all good, just let me in the clubhouse now")

It's very hard to prove god exists or doesn't exist so I am willing to leave that possibility open as a small maybe or who knows.

Maybe the random cycle of events that caused the big bang could be defined as god. Luck, random, fate, chance, it's all such hard to grab concepts.

But I just wish people could find a modern way of incorporating religion into our modern lives. Like I said earlier, religion is not a bad thing if used with moderation. Some people need the safety net of a God or a reason to have hope and to live a good life. But it goes out of control when you see fanatics talk about creatonism or the "right for life" for brain dead bodies or unborn babies with malformations that will have them have a painfull life of only a few weeks at best.

The key is mutual respect of opinions, giving the choice to believe what you want. In Europe, things seem pretty balanced. But from the limited view I probably have from the situation in the USA, it looks the non believers are in a constant struggle to be able to live without God.

so what's the argument not to do it?

you can say:

If God removed evil and death from the world and got us out of every difficulty we would become a bunch of wimps.

I can say:

If God removed evil and death from the world and got us out of every difficulty we would become a happy society where everybody had lots of free time to play DKice.

man when i start typing DKice in google, nothing shows up...

It's not God's way to give up and start over. That would just be an admission that the devil won.

Instead, God takes what the devil does and turns it to redound to his own glory. And the ultimate of that redounding is to for God to put all the devil's works onto his own son as a complete substutionary sacrifice for mankind, and to take that son and to put him in the very place from which the devil was ousted.

put the son in the very place the devil was ousted from? i dont follow.

also, for fun, God came extremely close to giving up twice. once, he destroyed everything but noah and his family. the second time, he wanted to do the same thing, except moses told him to be patient, and God relented.

"....... but according to the same logic, it is upon the atheists to prove where everything originated from."

sorry, wrong

I do not have to prove anything to be able to say that the "evidence" I have seen for god is unconvincing. just because I do not have a good hypothisis does not mean that you can subsitute a horrible hypothisis (I call it horrible bc its not proovable, and even if it was true it would not help the growth of knowlage).


so in short, I don't have to proove shit in order to say that I do not belive in god.

it is called the null hypothesis, and it is a big deal.



now on the other hand, there IS alot that science has "proved" about the beginning of the universe, but just because science does not have all the answers, does not mean that you get to substitude whatever fairytale most appeals to you.

kreuz, discussions dont work well when people start their argument with something like:

wrong.

lets keep this a pleasant discussion. i am not skrum or TC, who are arguing from the bible. im just as much a scientist as you are, so dont dismiss me so offhandedly please.

ok, im not saying you have to disprove god. im sorry i assumed you believed in science/bigbang theory. maybe you dont. i was just wondering where matter/energy came from. im not trying to trap you into saying something that you cannot back up with science. im just wondering, because if i did not believe in a creator being, then i would place an extremely high priority on having a decent answer to the matter/energy question. but maybe thats just me.

can science ever prove the infiniteness of matter/energy? an interesting conundrum perhaps.

If a bear shits in the woods and noone is there to smell it, does his shit still stink?

Why do we need to know the beginning? Why do we need to know the end?

If people worried a little more about the now and a little less about the before and after, the world would be a much better place.

Scientists spend time trying to prove what happened in the past. Religious folks spend their time planning for the future (afterlife). There's a happy medium in between, and all the speculation would subside.

oki, sorry



my main point was simply that to reject something, does not require an alternative.


and yes I do belive in science, biology and big bang theory. and the day I am trying to defend these (postive) claims, is the day I need proof.

but there are atheists that do not belive in these things. there are many atheists that belive in crystals, and homeopathy and stuff like that. being an atheist does not mean that you have to belive in science.



"can science ever prove the infiniteness of matter/energy?"

it is difficult to know what the answer to this question will be. as we for the moment do not even know what time is. there are at least 6 competing definitions of time.

so it is very difficult to know exactly what infintiy means, when one does not know what time is.