Well you would have to provide empiracal proof for your theory that the world is 1 day old. That said I agree science isn't infallible and there is always room for doubt but its far from just guesses.
The evidence does not support the existence of god so to conclude there is no god is logical. There is nothing close-minded about disbelieving in something when there is no evidence to suggest it exists. If you walked out of the mall and your car was not where you parked it do you conclude that it was either towed or stolen or do you seriously consider the possibility that an invisible dragon picked it up and flew off. Are you being close-minded for not giving that idea plausibility?
Hey how was your trip? How's the band? Hey you need to come down here and bring your guitar. I haven't been to surfside in 3 weeks, so I don't know how things are going at the moment, but they still love ya baby
depends on the definition of evidence. a religious person would say they wake up everyday that is evidence of God's grace. also existence of Evolution . . i don't think is a tenet of Atheism Evidence in science can be simply . . . the way thing act around something without ever having to actually have any proof of the something Black holes are not really detectable but the behavior of things around it tents to inform us where they are. . . . . a religious person would say all the day to day miracles of their life are proof of God . . . even if you cannot see the being himself Rocket River http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/detect.htm
Just an aside, and not meant to derail, but why do so many adults still worry what mom and dad think? (unless there is a substantial inheritance involved)
There nothing illogical about cloncluding there is no God but given that there is no way to prove there isn't there is always the possibility. Occams Razor is frequently brought up to counter the idea of an all powerful God but if we are talking about the scale of Universe does that really apply? I like to think of what are the odds from the beginning of the universe that I would end up having bagels for breakfast this morning. If you consider from the beginning of the Universe the odds are incalculable that billions of years form now I would exist on Earth at a particular point of time to have bagels for breakfast this morning yet that is what happened. Occam's Razor IMO is relative based upon a certain set of data yet given the vastness of the Universe and how little we understand of it I'm not sure a sound argument can be made that God(s) doesn't exist. Again as I said though I don't think the existence of God(s) is a scientific matter and its self-defeating to try to prove or disprove it based on scientific reasoning.
Personally, I respect my parents and respect their ideas and opinions. If they disapprove of something I do, it would disappoint me even if I disagree with their reasoning.
According to science, the universe is 14 billion light years across. okay, 1 billion seconds is about 32 years! and one light second is 186,000 miles long! And this is only the "observable universe"! Wow! So why would God talk to us? What makes us special? Wouldn't we be just a spec of inifintely small dust to him? Do you realize how tiny we are? I assume God has a gender. If God is that powerful, then why bother let the non believers live? Why not make this a perfect world of people who worship him? How simple would it be to eliminate the non believers. I think atheism is good if you have morals. But what about depressed atheists? Are they more likely to commit suicide, since there is no punishment for such action?
Who's to say God can't "talk" to us and deal with everything else within his almighty realm as well? We don't know what God is capable of/what his limits are. We assume though, that he's capable of handling infinitely more things than a human. Obviously a human can only balance so many things in life (job, school, wife, kids, family, etc)...I think most believers realize that God must be working on an infinitely larger scale, somehow. We just don't know exactly what it entails.
From an atheist's point of view, saying a religious man is happier than an non-religious one is no more relevant that saying a drunk man is happier than a sober one.
Okay, so the "observable" universe is about 82,119,744,000,000,000,000,000 miles across. If it is a sphere, then it is is about 2,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [/B] miles of volume! Wow! This is why I don't think this planet is special. Just the observable universe makes makes us look like nothing. Imagine how big the "real universe" is!
Okay, so say God can talk to us and actually did talk to us in the form of the Exodus Landlord Landry mentioned. If he is that powerful, then he should not have a problem showing his face. No need to hide. Obviously someone "heard" his voice, right? If seeing him is too much for us to take, then why is his sound bearable?
I don't know, I was just implying (and replying to your point by saying that perhaps he can deal with us and many many other things) that we have no idea what his realm is and how he does what he does, or why. I understand an atheist's thinking, and I think it's natural to question it...I guess you could almost say that it comes down to whether or not you believe in extraordinary/metaphysical acts and can accept that things outside of our own comprehension can take place. In general, I'm not going to argue with an atheist or any other idea for that matter, because when it comes down to it there is just not any proof (or enough of it).
I think of it like this. . . .how often do you 'talk' to that cell on the inner lining of your stomach . . no not that one but that one. I don't think their is much doubt YOU MADE THAT CELL . . . but do you 'talk to it? You do things that are in the best interest of that cell . . . .abet a bit indirectly but . .you eat right . .your move out of the way of ongoing trucks, etc to that cell . . .you are God . . you are its creator So . . . In a sense. . . I dunno how much direct contact God would have on one person . .. but every now and again . . a few cells need your direct attention Rocket River
Who is this "you" that supposedly created the cell? The cell exists because it split from another cell according to a certain set of instructions. We don't need to bring any other actor into the equation, just as we don't need to bring in any god into the equation of the universe.
Basing on fact and basing on FAITH are 2 different animals all together. Science(which mos evolutionists and atheists tend to side with)are based solely on the logical facts of the KNOWN universe. It makes it easier to believe, whereas Religion require a fundamental faith in the UNKNOWN. That tends to scare alot of people away. But say for instance you are required to PROVE to an atheist the existence of your GOD vs an atheist proving the facts of the universe. Could you do it? NO you could not, one who is religious or spiritual needs to remember not to pass off religious dogma or fundamentals as "facts." Different strokes for different folks...some need the idea or belief in GOD, while others find comfort and a solid foundation in universal facts...
Sure but you don't grant plausibility to all things possible. Yes, it does. We have more than enough knowledge about the natural world around us to make very accurate predictions about it. It's not as if our knowledge about the world is from only one source. We have vast knowledge and it all points the same way. I guess it would depend on your definition of god(s). I have yet to hear a definition of god(s) that did not directly conflict with scientific and philosophical reasoning. I think we know more than enough about the world around us to definitely conclude that there is no god(s). Science can disprove of god(s) to the same degree that it can (and has) disprove(d) every other mythical, supernatural being. That's the problem I have with the view that "we can't discount the existence of god(s) completely due to our lack of knowledge about the universe" mentality I keep encountering. An honest, rational person freely admits that we know enough to discount the existence of invisible dragons, leprechauns and fairies yet god(s) get special rules that someone how makes it immune to reason. For all of our evidence to be wrong and evidence we don't have and will never see to say there is a god(s) is so ridiculously unlikely it isn't even an idea worth entertaining.
I think you are correct to say that Science and Faith shouldn't be used to disprove the other, but I disgree that people that are generally against religion don't use science to give reason to their claim that there is no god. THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME. And it is just iroinc to me that they generally have the notion that science is proof. The problem with Science being the end all method is that Science, for the most part, doesn't know at what end of the knowledge continuum it might be when they present there findings. Something could be discovered tomorrow that would change all of a whole school of science. I think in general the scienctific method is a good but VERY volatile system for understanding things.
