NoSurvivors wrote:I was taught never to take part in religious arguments, simply because there are too many opinions; however this is an interesting thread.
Anything IS possible. Anything. Dinosaurs could repopulate the earth at exactly 6:48AM tomorrow EST. It is highly improbably, however not impossible.
Take into account that for instance, if you have a table in your living room. You turn around, you don't see the table. You do not know what that table does when you are not looking at it, to witness/prove that it doesn't do anything. In fact, you have a good idea of what it does due to when you look at it, it doesn't do anything. However, when you look away, the table could fly to the moon and back, being in the same position when you turn back around. Unlikely, but possible.
Like these examples, we do not know there is a God. However, through personal experience/family upbringing/beliefs, whatever the reason, some people believe that there is a god, based on circumstantial evidence that, when you apply things such as science, do not make much sense at all.
However on the same note, people who decide to go with the non-believing route, see things in a more "scientific" way.
Look at science. Take a good look at for example (my favorite) astronomy:
In astronomy; the creation of the universe, the galaxies, planets, moons, even the creation of evolution and such, are ALL based on circumstantial evidence, as religion is. We use OUR CREATIONS to judge how other things should be, based on past results or experiences as a species, and application of things we think we know.
Gravity, I believe is real. However, it is only a theory in a way that we think is . We cannot prove gravity is gravity all throughout the universe, we can only make predictions. "Educated" predictions. Gravity works on Earth, so it must work everywhere! Just like the earth was the center of the universe at one point, right?
The big bang, a theory. It is a good theory, with a lot of "scientific evidence", but really, is it scientific evidence? Look at it this way; we have no way of PROVING that the big bang happened, we have no way to prove it did not happen. We can guess and speculate all we want. It is exactly like God or whatever it is we want to argue (among different religions).
God might exist, there might be something bigger that watches us or that is the reason for our being, or there might not be! We will never know until we die, and even then we cannot tell others here on Earth if there is/isn't.
Therefore, I believe since there is no way to prove there is or isn't anything above, only our gut feelings and what we choose to believe, I believe we should just stop arguing, and baiting (as this is what this thread is, and don't try to tell me it isn't because "post any evidence of God here" is a title full of baiting), and just let people believe WHATEVER they want as a religion.
Religious people; stop shoving things down other people's throats.
Non religious people; stop bating and flaming the religious people who believe in something you might not.
So here is a challenge: post evidence god DOESN'T exist 100%. Go on. Try it.
Although I do follow you a part of your opinion, I do not agree with all your statements. For instance you say that gravity is only a theory. I do not agree with this. The fact that it has been used in so many calculations so many times for over 300 years with only failing in a few cases, like the expansion of the universe, makes it a fact and not a theory. If it was only a theory and not a fact it would have never worked so well in so many calculations. What can be true though is that there are other forces who influence gravity.
I do have to admit however that the same does not go for the big bang theory. You are right that this is just a theory. You should however consider not just the existence of it's supporting evidence but the type of evidence. In that respect I think it is unfair to judge it the same way as you judge religions. Religions and science differ greatly in the types of delivered evidence. While religious evidence rests mostly on some written evidence and human experiences, science relies on logic and more importantly empirical evidence.
Another matter you state is that a divine existence can not be 100% proven or disproven. This although right in the general meaning of the word, is not entirely true. You can 100% disprove certain definitions
of divine entities.
I'll give you an example. Let us suppose someone believes in the existence of a creator who is all powerfull, all knowing and all good, with good being defined here as wanting to prevent suffering. In this specific example there is a logical fallacy. If a God is all good, he should be willing to do something about all the suffering in the world. If he is all knowing, he should be aware of the all the suffering in the world. And if he is all powerfull he should be able to do something about the suffering. In other words in this example the god-entity should be using his power right now get rid of all the suffering. Yet we can see suffering all over the globe. In other words this definition of a divine creator is 100% wrong according to logic as at least one of it's features must be untrue.