[quote][quote='fr0d0' )
Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not.[/quote]
A contradictory discussion between two people has sense only if there exists even a slightest common
base of ideas.Otherwise the discussion is of the kind or dialogue between deafs.
In this topic it seems to me that there has to be at least a common base of a minimum agreement rational thinking.
If you say "credo quia absurdum" ,I believe in God although it is absurd or may be because it is absurd
then every effort to convince you against faith is doomed to fail.Stop of dialogue!
On the other hand if you accept a base of rational thinking than it is your duty to prove the existence of God which you cannot do unless you resort to non scientifical or to para scientifical writings.
The ultimate weapon against atheism is that science doesn't have the power either to totally disprove the existence of God,which is true.
The trick is that atheists themselves declare loud and clear that their tools are not perfect and that
science is only able to proof that there are no reasons to believe in God,no more then that.
The explanation of it is very simple :humans of our era are only a link in the evolution of life on earth so we are by no means supposed to know all about nature otherwise we would be Gods which we are not because we are convinced that he does not exist.
The answer which religion is supposed to give on why the world ticks and how it ticks related to God is devoid of any rational thinkig and following falls out from the dialogue.
I debated with a lot of members of this forum about the importance of disproving the existence of God by proving that he is a creation of Man derived, along history of mankind, from a multitude of social,political,economical, spiritual reasons .
Only a few agreed with me but I still maintain this opinion.
There is no major religion of our era which is not based on holly scriptures. Who wrote those scripture other the men who did it,same as in our time,from certain reasons. No scripture was written by God and that is a scientifically proven fact.
So here we are ,if your faith in the existence of God is irrational then you are "right",but if you accept as a base of thinking the rational one then your belief is disproved .
I've followed all the discussions beginning with the first post and found them highly intersting but I consider that this reply sheds a more simple but essential light on the problem
Belief in God is an exception to the rule of science that everything requires proof. By definition, belief, or more accurately faith does not.[/quote]
A contradictory discussion between two people has sense only if there exists even a slightest common
base of ideas.Otherwise the discussion is of the kind or dialogue between deafs.
In this topic it seems to me that there has to be at least a common base of a minimum agreement rational thinking.
If you say "credo quia absurdum" ,I believe in God although it is absurd or may be because it is absurd
then every effort to convince you against faith is doomed to fail.Stop of dialogue!
On the other hand if you accept a base of rational thinking than it is your duty to prove the existence of God which you cannot do unless you resort to non scientifical or to para scientifical writings.
The ultimate weapon against atheism is that science doesn't have the power either to totally disprove the existence of God,which is true.
The trick is that atheists themselves declare loud and clear that their tools are not perfect and that
science is only able to proof that there are no reasons to believe in God,no more then that.
The explanation of it is very simple :humans of our era are only a link in the evolution of life on earth so we are by no means supposed to know all about nature otherwise we would be Gods which we are not because we are convinced that he does not exist.
The answer which religion is supposed to give on why the world ticks and how it ticks related to God is devoid of any rational thinkig and following falls out from the dialogue.
I debated with a lot of members of this forum about the importance of disproving the existence of God by proving that he is a creation of Man derived, along history of mankind, from a multitude of social,political,economical, spiritual reasons .
Only a few agreed with me but I still maintain this opinion.
There is no major religion of our era which is not based on holly scriptures. Who wrote those scripture other the men who did it,same as in our time,from certain reasons. No scripture was written by God and that is a scientifically proven fact.
So here we are ,if your faith in the existence of God is irrational then you are "right",but if you accept as a base of thinking the rational one then your belief is disproved .
I've followed all the discussions beginning with the first post and found them highly intersting but I consider that this reply sheds a more simple but essential light on the problem
