Why not post it here?

We're not cluttering anything, we're having a discussion and that's perfectly fine. In fact this is a rare occasion when the comments are not clutter/spam/crap.

Sure.

oh, this is so easy…

1. Relativity, of course. Matter and energy the same thing … but can you tell me where it came from? How it violated the law of conservation of energy and came into existence in our universe? It is a fact that somewhere in the universe's past, something outside the scope of physics acted upon it. Newton's laws (a closed system will retain its state of being unless acted upon by an outside force) and the law of conservation of energy (Where'd the matter in the universe come from? According to this law, it can't exist for it was never created and therefore never was) attest to the presence of SOMETHING outside our frame of reference. Now, wouldn't it be helpful to find out what this creator is?

2. See above. Atheism requires the belief in an unproven and theoretically impossible idea.

3. Just becaue they won't find truth. Think about it - the question of God is the most important one in the universe. If I'm right, or if any one of the other religions is right, your eternity is going to be a very sad thing if you just ignore the question.

4. Again, see answer to #1.

5. And that statement is absolutely false. For starters, the Bible is the single most verified book in existence. Thousands of people, scientists and the like, have tried to disprove it unsuccessfully. The things it describes have been proven to be truth - from the Old Testament nations and kings to the existence of Jesus Christ. (Whose disciples, by the way, willingly died horrible deaths for their beliefs - which proves that they did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and wrote it down. I could write a treatise on this point, and if you ask I will) People don't die for something they know is a lie - only for what they think is truth, if then. The arguments outlined in Point 1 also make a strong case for the existence

of a creator. Finally, the existence of consciousness is curiously inexplicable. If life is no more than the actions of chemicals, then are computers alive? Is grass self-aware? If we have what we have, and know that we are, then everything else, every animal, plant, and rock, must be similar in being. In fact, this must be true of even our arms and legs, and any collection of matter.

Chemical reactions don't make life. Never have, never will. It takes something else to live.

6. As half the stuff you believe contradicts the other half, I suggest you get that straightened out directly.

7. Nor do I, thank you.

This is something science is still trying to work out. You seem to think that we as humans should know everything, and what we say goes indefinitely. If you believe that there is a God named FSM then there is one. If we make up a theory that we say is always true then it is. That's not the case.

Clearly the laws of thermodynamics are not completely correct. There is a theory to try explain this, the theory of the Multiverse.

You see, you think that our universe is the only one that exists, but the multiverse theory states that we are one of many. We are bound by our laws of physics, but other universes have their own, entirely different laws. In other universes, maybe they could create and destroy energy… why not? Who says what goes? We certainly don't.

So, it could be that all of our energy and matter came from another giant universe that we are inside, which is inside another universe, inside another - ad infinitum.

There is a very interesting documentary about all of this, I suggest you watch it:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8018371269760059556&q=are+we+real

So does believing in God. Your point?

Why wont they? Their truth is not nesseceraly yours. My truth is that there is a flying tea pot orbiting the Earth.

To people who believe in it. To people who don't, they don't give a crap.

Then let's hope I'm right.

Really! Show me. And don't say it was 'verified by God'.

Haha, this is where you people fall short.

It is not a scientist's or anybody else's job to try DISPROVE your claims.

It is your job to PROVE your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here are some examples. I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, the tooth fairy and Batman. I also believe there are invisible people who you cannot see, hear, smell or touch.

Please try disprove the existence of any one of them. You can't because I have no way of proving them either.

Seriously! Show me. And don't say they were proven by some other crazy religious metaphysical crap.

Sigh. They believed it, for real. That doesn't make it any more true. They died for it. So what? What one person thinks is truth is entirely different from another. Your reasoning is baffling.

Oh, I and many scientists are open to the idea of a creator. It's just the possibility is so tiny we ignore it. In fact, one of my beliefs is in the possibility of the simulation theory, which states that we are inside a computer and simply a simulation - possibly one of many. This indeed would be proof of a creator.

Maybe, maybe the grass has no way of telling us that it is self aware but it really sees us and screams when we are mowing the lawn. Seriously though consciousness is one of those rare things that we truly don't understand. That doesn't mean it supports a creator in any way shape or form.

Yea, it's called evolution. I believe we are just the result of a bunch of random coincidences that just happened to produce us. We could have turned out in any number of ways. Imagine leaving a piece of bread out and mold growing on it if it's warm enough.

Yea, that's what science does. It creates theories, disproves or proves them, and builds on them. There are many contradictions in science, there always have been and thats what makes it great.

Religion, on the other hand stubbornly sticks to one belief. Oh and for the record there are plenty of contradictions in the bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

1. So basically, you're saying that you believe in a massive pantheon of other-universe beings who are able to and have an interest in modifying the state of this universe - in other words, gods. In that case, you'd better start praying to the scientists of Dimension X, hadn't you?

2. My point is simply that many atheists don't believe in God because they think there's no proof - then they turn around and believe something that has no proof anyway.

3. Ah, relativism. The old lie. That is not a truth, that is an opinion. Truth is, out of any group of conflicting opinions, only one (or none) is true. That's the nature of truth, no matter how you want to modify the definition.

4. That point was directed at agnosticism, not atheism, thank you.

5. Hope ain't good enough.

6. Dead sea scrolls. Roman historians. Greek historians. Archaeological findings. Scorch marks on top of a certain mountain in the Middle East. An aircraft carrier-sized wooden wreck on top of another mountain. Twelve disciples who chose to die for their written beliefs - not for a dead man, but for Christ. Need I say more?

7. Counter: I believe that according to the laws of physics, the universe can't logically exist. Yet here we are. Something's fishy there, no? God explains our existence. Does your theory?

8. See point 6.

9. Four different disciples/other followers wrote accounts of what Christ did and said. They wrote that he raised people from the dead, performed mighty miracles, and rose from the dead himself. Then, some of those four (not the second-hand writing ones, I believe) valued their beliefs enough to die for them. Are you saying that all twelve apostles were deluded into believing that Christ rose from the dead? Because if not, it stands to reason that he did.

10.

A. If we're talking probabilities, how about the probability that your thing is true?

B. In that case, you'd best start praying to the people running the simulation, hadn't you? Maybe they'll take notice and give you a shiny new car.

I know of many contemporary miracles, and will name a few here:

* One Nigerian pastor rose from the dead after three days of lying in an open funeral.

* A friend of mine recovered from a football accident (which had caused internal injuries, which were noted on a medical scan) an hour after the scan.

* My pastor's wife told the congregation how someone she met was cured of cancer due to her prayer.

11. Richard Dawkins wouldn't think too highly of you, would he?

12. I thought they disproved spontaneous generation back in the 1800s or so. Basically, the idea of life-through-evolution is no more than circular reasoning - somebodies want to disprove God, so they say that life came from chemicals, and therefore, because they think there is no God, life must come from chemicals.

13. I looked on that page, and it's incredibly mixed up. Just about everything there is simply version discrepancies - the way the text was translated 400 years ago, when various words and phrases had different meanings from today. It's about the same as saying that any poem which mentions "gay" in the old meaning (happy, joyful) is actually talking about homosexuality.

Then there's the ones like this:

"Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof."

Which are simple cases of not reading what was written. The foundations of the earth can mean the base - the center of the earth itself, the rock and magma in its center - rather than anything to support it on.

And the "pillars of heaven" are likely not things supporting it, but rather pillars within the New Jerusalem.

Many of them are taken out of context, or have been disproven, or aren't contradictions at all. A few I have heard the answer to in my Basic Theology class.

First of all, I get the part about the law - I fail to see the paradox.

As for the second, you don't get it, do you? Agnosticism differs from atheism in that it assumes that the answers cannot be found. I am an atheist, and I am assured that any potential problem in physics, biology or chemistry can be solved without involving the supernatural. I believe that a world which would have an active theistic force capable of answering prayers and doing miracles would look drastically different from ours in all aspects, and our world certainly doesn't resemble one that is planned by a superior intelligence, not to mention one that any of the sacred texts describe.

Well, nice to know, but say, we had religion in the bronze age already, and we somehow couldn't use its way of explaining the world to come up with compasses, electricity or the periodic table. On the other hand, it worked pretty well as far as hacking and slashing other tribes was concerned.

Unless were talking about a false vacuum, decaying to a state of true vacuum, and causing what is described as bubble nucleation, ripping out holes in reality and starting big bangs that spring out universes infinitely far away from one another, running in causal chains until the entropy eats them up.

Have you ever considered this?

1. Basically, there is matter where there should be none. A man sees an egg and proclaims that it fell from the sky, ignoring the possibility of a chicken.

2. …and when the religious people (Newton, Galileo, etc. to name a few) came along and discovered things like electricity and gravity, suddenly no one cares.

3. So you're saying that empty space will blossom into a universe? That matter is randomly created in emptiness? Sure, let's just toss hundreds of years of physics work out the window to suit your pet theory, why don't we. But let's try this: In that case, every particle ought to be different from every other - since it's random, there should be an infinite number of other universes where physics doesn't hold. In an infinite number of these, there will be beings which can and do influence other universes, and one of those just killed you. Oh, and… name just one example of this happening, why don't you?

Whenever an atheist tries to answer the question of existence, all he ever comes up with is increasingly improbable, impossible theories. It's almost funny to watch people do this, and see the lengths to which they will go to deny that there is a God.

Omicron1, you're a funny old chap. I'm not going to continue arguing with you as you are clearly blinded by belief and are in capable of logical reasoning. Your points are extremely weak and lack understanding of basic science, yet you continue to use it.

It's funny because on the one hand you try to use science as an aid for your arguments and then on the other hand you believe in something that completely goes against science.

So yea, lets just agree to disagree as we will never get anywhere.

Well… good try omnicron1. You're a better Christian than I.

I'm having conflicting thoughts about religion right now, in case anyone is wondering why I sat out of this discussion. Usually I'd be on the front line [;)]

Nevertheless, it was fun to read these comments. Good points by everyone.

Except RetroVortex [:P]

->OpticalLiam: There are two beliefs in question here. Yours, which seems based upon what you can see and verify; and mine, which accepts that there are things which cannot be understood. I have attempted to address both beliefs in the same argument, and I have apparently not made the distinction clear. I will try to explain my arguments:

* There are theories in science which go against what has been previously established in science. I tried to use logic and scientific arguments in these areas

* There are parts of Christianity which have scientific explanations and proofs, and here I have tried to use science to show them.

A few minor points for you:

* From where I sit, you appear at least as blinded by your lack of belief as you claim I am by my belief.

* You say my points are weak, yet half of them you have refused to answer. If they were so easy to refute, why are you so hesitant?

* Christianity is not anti-science; rather, the opposite is true - unless your definition of science involves abandoning any idea that you can't prove, in which case science is self-destructive.

* I am fully capable of logical reasoning. I see a universe, and think that it may have come from something outside itself. I see order, and think that it was made in an orderly state. Both of these are concurrent with scientific law, and with my beliefs.

Intelligence is the opposite of entropy.

It's funny how many of your own arguments apply to you. You, who claim to be grounded in fact and reality, believe in something which is sanctioned by neither.

But yes, once again we are at a stalemate. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." (replace "a rich man" with "one overly self-confident in his own knowledge" and you've got a useful analogy)

->PM: Quality of christianity has nothing to do with what one says or knows.