Does God Exist?

[ItsDave]

I'd like to see some evidence. Sure its a massive conisedance that we managed to be life forms, and live, and creatures live all because of the big bang and thats why I think there must be other life forms other than us. But if there is evidence which can be presented to me that supports God, I might consider it, but I'd doubt it, highly. So really... no. He does not exist.

[RandomManJay]

Theres no need to wonder, the problem has nothing to do with not knowing the answer's, its purely with people not liking the answers they get.
There is no heaven, reincarnation or any form of life after death, when you die your body ceases to function. Thats all there is to it. You ether rot in the floor or get incinerated. If your a donor they may remove any useful organs too

Religion can no longer function as a answer to the unanswerable, since the unanswerable is fictitious. Religion just serves as an outlet for people in denial to avoid accepting the bits of the world they dont like. We have no freewill, no purpose, no destiny, were pure fluke - to think otherwize is contrary to the evidence we have.

Despite it being unable to function as an answer, it doesn't change the fact that 2-3 billion people in the world which believe in it, and although it may be gradually deminishing in some countries and some cultures, it doesn't change the fact that in some its rapidily on the increase. Considering the evidence is there, why do people still believe in it rather than listening to the facts, people don't see the answers in science and facts because many only explain the phenomenon, not it's causes and not the reasons why, these are the answers people want, and these people aren't ready to accept the answers presented to them.

I still believe that as long as this need is required, religion will always exist, as long as there are people who choose to deny the validity of science containing the answers, religion will come back time and time again. And whos to say that science could become a religion, considering the main theory for the creation of the universe is one singular defining event, you could argue that this can be related to god, a singular defining entity creating the universe rather than the singular defining event.

[Mentor]

Despite it being unable to function as an answer, it doesn't change the fact that 2-3 billion people in the world which believe in it, and although it may be gradually deminishing in some countries and some cultures, it doesn't change the fact that in some its rapidily on the increase.

Even with your numbers, that means there is 35% less followers of religion than there were but a 100 years ago, give it another few 100 the numbers will continue there downward spiral.
As science answers questions and removes the shadows of ignorance which religion thrives on, religion and super natural belief in general will decline.
Within a 1000 years i expect, assuming the earth stays on its current course, i expect the religious population would fall way below a single %. Quite possibly much sooner

Considering the evidence is there, why do people still believe in it rather than listening to the facts, people don't see the answers in science and facts because many only explain the phenomenon, not it's causes and not the reasons why, these are the answers people want, and these people aren't ready to accept the answers presented to them.

The facts with cause and effect quite happy cover the why's too. Much of the older generations were brainwashed for lack of a better word in to the religious convictions they hold today, the younger generations much less so. Considering the majority of the religious population in the uk for example is over 60, it makes sence to think as the older generations die of and the new ones take there place, the % of people following religious beliefs will fall dramatically.

I still believe that as long as this need is required, religion will always exist, as long as there are people who choose to deny the validity of science containing the answers, religion will come back time and time again.

The need is not innate, its the result of years of indoctrination and brainwashing designed to keep the weak weak and the powerful powerful. The obviousness that religion is wrong is more evident to each generation, meaning brainwashing is far less effective than in the past. You can deniy science left right and center. The fact near everything in the world is based on the principles found though tends to conflict with the notion.

And whos to say that science could become a religion, considering the main theory for the creation of the universe is one singular defining event, you could argue that this can be related to god, a singular defining entity creating the universe rather than the singular defining event.

Science cannot become a religion, such a concept requires total ignorance of both the terms involved and the princibles they are based on? The claim is absurd??
Additionally, no where is this single event claimed, the big bang sent the universe flying out, it did not put it there. Just like evolution is the proccess by which life adapts, it has nothing to do with how it first formed.

Science is just a best guess based on the known facts, as we learn more, the theories are refined and improved. The more we know, the more accurate are theorys and understanding of whats involved the "science" changes constantly

[RandomManJay]

Even with your numbers, that means there is 35% less followers of religion than there were but a 100 years ago, give it another few 100 the numbers will continue there downward spiral.
As science answers questions and removes the shadows of ignorance which religion thrives on, religion and super natural belief in general will decline.
Within a 1000 years i expect, assuming the earth stays on its current course, i expect the religious population would fall way below a single %. Quite possibly much sooner


The facts with cause and effect quite happy cover the why's too. Much of the older generations were brainwashed for lack of a better word in to the religious convictions they hold today, the younger generations much less so. Considering the majority of the religious population in the uk for example is over 60, it makes sence to think as the older generations die of and the new ones take there place, the % of people following religious beliefs will fall dramatically.


The need is not innate, its the result of years of indoctrination and brainwashing designed to keep the weak weak and the powerful powerful. The obviousness that religion is wrong is more evident to each generation, meaning brainwashing is far less effective than in the past. You can deniy science left right and center. The fact near everything in the world is based on the principles found though tends to conflict with the notion.


Science cannot become a religion, such a concept requires total ignorance of both the terms involved and the princibles they are based on? The claim is absurd??
Additionally, no where is this single event claimed, the big bang sent the universe flying out, it did not put it there. Just like evolution is the proccess by which life adapts, it has nothing to do with how it first formed.

Science is just a best guess based on the known facts, as we learn more, the theories are refined and improved. The more we know, the more accurate are theorys and understanding of whats involved the "science" changes constantly

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything . Just I believe that religion will always remain as long as people feel they need it, I didn't say it was innate, just simply a need to understanding the unknown, an unknown they can easily comprehend like an unknown force doing everything for us. And the science being a religion is a philosophical idea that its a belief of the universe, and could stand as a religion despite its methods and logic, and like many philosophical ideas, it isn't really followed. Personally I'd hate it to be a religion, it would mean I've put myself behind a religion for all these years instead of following cold hard fact.

I do hope it does finally end, but seeing as how much the religions are fighting back and even some creating new resolves and the teaching methods aren't changing within these religions, it could take a hell of a long time for religion to end, and with no avail in the end if the big questions still can't be answered.

[Dentafrice]

Unanswerable is not fictitious, what created the big bang? What started it? Because if the big bang created everything, what created the big bang if there were no elements, no molecules, no chemicals, no heat, no cool, no anything until the big bang.

[Dan2nd]

But aren't a lot of the atheist beleves (such as the big bang, evolution etc) still only theories meaning they haven't been fully proven?

Until these theories have been fully proven as fact aren't a lot of people just blindly agreeing with it alot like religion is being critised for?

I mean since these theories haven't been fully proven much like religion aren't athiests effectivly preeching these ideas to me?

Don't get me wrong I'm not totally disregarding science I just was looking for opinions

[Mentor]

Unanswerable is not fictitious, what created the big bang? What started it? Because if the big bang created everything, what created the big bang if there were no elements, no molecules, no chemicals, no heat, no cool, no anything until the big bang.

Matter and antimatter at a near infinite density created/caused the big bang, the big bang has nothing to do with the creation of matter. Depending on who you side with there are a number of explanations, collision with another dimension is one option

The cosmological augment fails, as by making the assertion the universe needs a first cause, you must then accept so does your god. Meaning no progress is made, and Occam's rasor is against you o.o

But aren't a lot of the atheist beleves (such as the big bang, evolution etc) still only theories meaning they haven't been fully proven?

Theories are just are best estimation based on all facts known to date, they are tested, disproven, revised and slowly head towards being right.
Scienfic theory is very differnt to the common useage of the word. Also, evolution is fact, we know it happens. Same with big bang, we also know it did. The theories are are explanations of what caused these events and exactly how they function.
We may not know for sure every detail of how evolution works for example, but despite that its obvious to see it does and is happening.

Until these theories have been fully proven as fact aren't a lot of people just blindly agreeing with it alot like religion is being critised for?

No, we follow the evidence, as the evidence we have increases, we just ajust are understanding to be more accurate.
This is very differnt from pulling a conclusion out your arse and just deniying everything out there that disagrees with it

I mean since these theories haven't been fully proven much like religion aren't athiests effectivly preeching these ideas to me?

Don't get me wrong I'm not totally disregarding science I just was looking for opinions

See above

[RandomManJay]

But aren't a lot of the atheist beleves (such as the big bang, evolution etc) still only theories meaning they haven't been fully proven?

Until these theories have been fully proven as fact aren't a lot of people just blindly agreeing with it alot like religion is being critised for?

I mean since these theories haven't been fully proven much like religion aren't athiests effectivly preeching these ideas to me?

Don't get me wrong I'm not totally disregarding science I just was looking for opinions

What makes it different is because there is actual proof which backs up the theories, it may not actually justify that they are 100% viable or accurate, but people (not only atheists) believe in them because of the proof in comparison to simple blind belief. Considering religion doesn't offer actual proof, or an incredibly small amount of proof, people would much rather go for the explanation with more proof than one without any (or an incredibly small amount).

[Dentafrice]

Matter and antimatter at a near infinite density created/caused the big bang, the big bang has nothing to do with the creation of matter. Depending on who you side with there are a number of explanations, collision with another dimension is one option

The cosmological augment fails, as by making the assertion the universe needs a first cause, you must then accept so does your god. Meaning no progress is made, and Occam's rasor is against you o.o

Theories are just are best estimation based on all facts known to date, they are tested, disproven, revised and slowly head towards being right.
Scienfic theory is very differnt to the common useage of the word. Also, evolution is fact, we know it happens. Same with big bang, we also know it did. The theories are are explanations of what caused these events and exactly how they function.
We may not know for sure every detail of how evolution works for example, but despite that its obvious to see it does and is happening.


No, we follow the evidence, as the evidence we have increases, we just ajust are understanding to be more accurate.
This is very differnt from pulling a conclusion out your arse and just deniying everything out there that disagrees with it


See above

So what is the supporting evidence of the big bang?

[Mentor]

So what is the supporting evidence of the big bang?

Background radiation, the redshift effect, fact the entire universe is still flying apart from a single point?