who created god.

[Mous]

One im not naive, lol. Now that that is cleared up. SCIENCE is not all theories...there is proof. Any god that is omnipotent, and omnipresent is impossible. It's like saying Barak Obama can be in the USA and France at the geneva convention at the same time. Furthermore it breaks the rules of physics, but since physics is nothing more then a theory as you put it then why believe in gravity or anything else? Furthemore to add to my rant, the bible was rewritten by the vatican , that's why some bibles say king james version. The english church had the bible stripped of scriptures that they didn't want the public to know, and that is FACT ! There is testimony from other disciples never even known to most christians because they are to arrogant and Naive to do any research of their own. So before you believe a book that is older then your great grandmother ask yourself why it was seized and rewritten? Then study some science gain some logic and maybe then you will realize that it is highly unlikely a deity is looking down on us. Notice I said "Highly unlikely ". Im an agnostic . But science is close just not close enough.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

What I HAVE noticed, is that you're still trying to use science to prove
"God". I'm pretty sure you haven't read any of my other posts, nor has
any one else, you're concentrating on a fragment of 1 out of 3 or 4 other
posts, and using that to base an entire argument off of. Not only that,
by doing so you're taking what I said completely out of context.

ALSO, infinity is "impossible" according to science, calculating something infinite gives you an answer that doesn't make sense. Quite honestly,
if you want to compare "facts" you're doing the same thing any religious
person is, just not involving your thought process' with "God".
I'm pretty sure that nobody can readily PROVE that there truly are
extra testimonies from biblical times, considering we can't talk to them,
and there are no pictures. Your "proof" isn't any thing more than just
speculation. ATHEISTS (not agnostics) disbelieve and try to disprove God.
AGNOSTICS (not Atheists) try to find out which of the two is correct,
by researching both ideals.

So, here's a summed up version of what you said, so we can recap;
"God can't exist, because HUMANS aren't Omnipotent/Omnipresent.
because I have a theory about how something (like gravity) works,
that makes me 100% correct, and there is no possible way that there is
any other explanation. (Because Issac Newton wasn't proven wrong,
nor was any other early-age scientist, or mathematician. We never
make new strides or advancements, at all.) Also, the INTERNET were I get
my resources from, never lies, and disproves everything that can't be
understood with numbers. You shouldn't believe the bible, because they
rewrite the entries and lie, but wikipedia never does that, and can always be
trusted. So, using this logic, God doesn't exist, and I can completely
explain how we came to be in this reality using numbers and theories."


I think I pretty much hit the nail on the head, there.

[Socrates]

Yes i don't feed into all that cacophony, but i like learning about it. It opens my eyes to other things.

well put.

---

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

What I HAVE noticed, is that you're still trying to use science to prove
"God". I'm pretty sure you haven't read any of my other posts, nor has
any one else, you're concentrating on a fragment of 1 out of 3 or 4 other
posts, and using that to base an entire argument off of. Not only that,
by doing so you're taking what I said completely out of context.

ALSO, infinity is "impossible" according to science, calculating something infinite gives you an answer that doesn't make sense. Quite honestly,
if you want to compare "facts" you're doing the same thing any religious
person is, just not involving your thought process' with "God".
I'm pretty sure that nobody can readily PROVE that there truly are
extra testimonies from biblical times, considering we can't talk to them,
and there are no pictures. Your "proof" isn't any thing more than just
speculation. ATHEISTS (not agnostics) disbelieve and try to disprove God.
AGNOSTICS (not Atheists) try to find out which of the two is correct,
by researching both ideals.

So, here's a summed up version of what you said, so we can recap;
"God can't exist, because HUMANS aren't Omnipotent/Omnipresent.
because I have a theory about how something (like gravity) works,
that makes me 100% correct, and there is no possible way that there is
any other explanation. (Because Issac Newton wasn't proven wrong,
nor was any other early-age scientist, or mathematician. We never
make new strides or advancements, at all.) Also, the INTERNET were I get
my resources from, never lies, and disproves everything that can't be
understood with numbers. You shouldn't believe the bible, because they
the entries and lie, but wikipedia never does that, and can always be
trusted. So, using this logic, God doesn't exist, and I can completely
explain how we came to be in this reality using numbers and theories."


I think I pretty much hit the nail on the head, there.

Seriously? Just google missing testaments from the bible! And im not talking about infinity and I did't say science has yet proved god doesn't exist I said "it is highly unlikely a deity exist' brush up on your history of the bible and how corrupt the church is then come talk to me.

p.s I am researching both ideas but atheism has more accurate facts then flawed spewed out thoughts. Secondly if I never researched both sides how would I know about the bible. I never said anything about Wikipedia and we aren't discussing that site. It's proof the Vatican rewrote the Damn bible just ask any historian . I've done my research bub, time to do your's

[Mous]

well put.

---

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

What I HAVE noticed, is that you're still trying to use science to prove
"God". I'm pretty sure you haven't read any of my other posts, nor has
any one else, you're concentrating on a fragment of 1 out of 3 or 4 other
posts, and using that to base an entire argument off of. Not only that,
by doing so you're taking what I said completely out of context.

ALSO, infinity is "impossible" according to science, calculating something infinite gives you an answer that doesn't make sense. Quite honestly,
if you want to compare "facts" you're doing the same thing any religious
person is, just not involving your thought process' with "God".
I'm pretty sure that nobody can readily PROVE that there truly are
extra testimonies from biblical times, considering we can't talk to them,
and there are no pictures. Your "proof" isn't any thing more than just
speculation. ATHEISTS (not agnostics) disbelieve and try to disprove God.
AGNOSTICS (not Atheists) try to find out which of the two is correct,
by researching both ideals.

So, here's a summed up version of what you said, so we can recap;
"God can't exist, because HUMANS aren't Omnipotent/Omnipresent.
because I have a theory about how something (like gravity) works,
that makes me 100% correct, and there is no possible way that there is
any other explanation. (Because Issac Newton wasn't proven wrong,
nor was any other early-age scientist, or mathematician. We never
make new strides or advancements, at all.) Also, the INTERNET were I get
my resources from, never lies, and disproves everything that can't be
understood with numbers. You shouldn't believe the bible, because they
the entries and lie, but wikipedia never does that, and can always be
trusted. So, using this logic, God doesn't exist, and I can completely
explain how we came to be in this reality using numbers and theories."


I think I pretty much hit the nail on the head, there.

Seriously? Just google missing testaments from the bible! And im not talking about infinity and I did't say science has yet proved god doesn't exist I said "it is highly unlikely a deity exist' brush up on your history of the bible and how corrupt the church is then come talk to me.

p.s I am researching both ideas but atheism has more accurate facts then flawed spewed out thoughts. Secondly if I never researched both sides how would I know about the bible. I've done my research bub, time to do your's

Rofl, you're not even discussing any more, you're just being defensive.
I'm pretty sure you didn't even read half of what I said, and you're not
even listening. Also, You're basing all your "facts" off of two things;
The internet, and the bible. Maybe you should broaden your search a bit.

[Socrates]

Wow Mous im done debating with you because you don't know where I've done my research. One it's called books, two it's called historical debates, three yes the internet but no not any site that can be labeled as false. You are ignorant to feast upon one area of where I've researched. All you have said is the "internet " Wikipedia" Im ROFL at you because you are to incoherent to realize that you are wrong about the vatican and need to brush up on your studies.

[Mous]

Wow Mous im done debating with you because you don't know where I've done my research. One it's called books, two it's called historical debates, three yes the internet but no not any site that can be labeled as false. You are ignorant to feast upon one area of where I've researched. All you have said is the "internet " Wikipedia" Im ROFL at you because you are to incoherent to realize that you are wrong about the vatican and need to brush up on your studies.

The thing is, I've never said one way or another about what The Vatican
has or hasn't done. that *proves* right there that you're attacking a
straw man.
Let me break this down nice and simple. Your argument sums up to
"Believe my books over yours!" Which isn't logical at all. You have no PROOF
of weather or not your sources speak truth, and you're still making assumptions.
Not only that, you *haven't* been holding any sort of discussion,
you've been telling me my *opinion* is wrong, and that yours is right, a
lot, but that's about all. You don't have any facts to back up your
statements, and the more you try, the more you just prove the fallacies
in your logic.

[Socrates]

The thing is, I've never said one way or another about what The Vatican
has or hasn't done. that *proves* right there that you're attacking a
straw man.
Let me break this down nice and simple. Your argument sums up to
"Believe my books over yours!" Which isn't logical at all. You have no PROOF
of weather or not your sources speak truth, and you're still making assumptions.
Not only that, you *haven't* been holding any sort of discussion,
you've been telling me my *opinion* is wrong, and that yours is right, a
lot, but that's about all. You don't have any facts to back up your
statements, and the more you try, the more you just prove the fallacies
in your logic.

God you're like talking to a wall. Go google or buy a book on how the church, or Christians stripped the bible and rewrote it . It is not false. It is fact. Sure I don't have the proof in my hand. But there are documents found and DISCOVERED and are in the hands of others. Furthermore I've never tried to say your opinion is wrong. But honestly they are flawed.

[Mous]

Go google or buy a book on how the church, or Christians stripped the bible and rewrote it . It is not false. It is fact. Sure I don't have the proof

The funny thing is, this is the SAME argument a theist would use to defend the bible. Like I said, you're basically saying "You should believe
a science book over the bible, because science is correct."

Furthermore I've never tried to say your opinion is wrong. But honestly they are flawed.

Oh really?

Im ROFL at you because you are to incoherent to realize that you are wrong about the vatican and need to brush up on your studies.

Sounds to me like you're not even keeping up in the conversation.

[Swat Runs Train]

Religion is based off observation as well, just a different sense of the word.
The entire point of religion (to me) is to try and put words to something
ineffable. Tell me, can science equate "infinity"?

Hell, for that matter, can science calculate something that happens (once),
or even in an uncontrolled environment? Science struggles proving things
like natural selection just because of all the minute and miniscule details
that come with how genes are bred from one generation to the next.
So, I honestly kinda fail to see how such an imperfect attempt at
calculation can *try* to be more perfect than something hypothetically
perfect, and immeasurable.

Honestly, this is like trying to use numbers to prove/disprove ghosts.
As far as "logic" goes, to me, logic would be;

"Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence"

Even on human standards.
Just because there isn't enough evidence to convict someone
of a crime, doesn't mean there was no crime committed. OR
Just because you can't prove "God", doesn't mean he becomes an
impossibility.

When you say that "God" not existing is more logical,
that's leaning toward Atheism, and less Agnostic, in my opinion.

You should consider looking up the word observation in a dictionary.

Also look up "Occam's Razor", the simplest, most logical possibility will be correct infinitely more so than the illogical ones.

[Socrates]

Whatever, the debate has gotten out of hand. Anyway all opinions open. Theist prove your god. Atheist prove why there is no god. Ready? Set ! GO!

[Mous]

You should consider looking up the word observation in a dictionary.

Also look up "Occam's Razor", the simplest, most logical possibility will be correct infinitely more so than the illogical ones.

Definitions of observation on the Web:

the act of making and recording a measurement
a remark expressing careful consideration
facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor"
notice: the act of noticing or paying attention;

I'm pretty sure I know what the word means, I'm also pretty sure that
you can OBSERVE "Holy days/beings/traditions/doctrines" etc.


The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

Also, this sounds like a gigantic excuse for not giving an explanation.
this isn't an argument that provides proof of any sort,
quite honestly this just utilizing a straw man to try to
NOT have to provide any sort of proof at all. This honestly sounds like
something a scientist would say when he can't back up his statement
just so he doesn't sound like he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just guessing.
(Maybe an educated guess, but still a guess.)

---

Whatever, the debate has gotten out of hand. Anyway all opinions open. Theist prove your god. Atheist prove why there is no god. Ready? Set ! GO!

Maybe you don't understand;

God can't be proven/disproven.
Agnostics win.