CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Uh, ya, tons of scientists believe in god, they just dont want to admit it so that their personal beliefs dont get in the way of their work. Its human nature to search for god, and saying that we have no evidence of god is irrational, god is supernatural, not natural, so our natural means will never be able to detect him. You want proof of god? Transcedental meditation, sure there might not be a "creator" god, and god could just be the conciousness of the energy in the universe, who knows? But its easy to tell if god exists, just listen to your heart, i know that doesnt say much in the face of science, but god gave us intuition for a reason, use it, search your feelings, you know it to be true. P.S.: Did you know that atheism is the most illogical belief system? God is the ONLY answer for how the big bang came into existence, science can explain what happened but they cant explain how. I would advise you, (and the rest of humanity seeing as how everyones losing their faith) to research meditation. EDIT And "believing in science" is stupid, what are you gonna believe? theres no faith in science, only hard answers. Science CAN NOT explain the supernatural, until we evolve as a species and open our conciousness, everything thats "illogical" to us right now in our current state of mind will become logical when we can comprehend it. Have faith.
Letter from Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
A letter from Einstein taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
From: Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Scientists are aware that our physical senses are not our only senses, we have other senses to detect things, ESP... psychic phenomena, theyve been doing alot of psychic research in the past thats the next step towards evidence, hard evidence, of god existing. Edit And think about it, is it really logical to dismiss god just because your field of study cant detect him? thats like saying the titanic could never sink, so noone believed it, and then it sank
Of course it will change. But until something proves that God isn't supernatural (not likely, since the definitions of 'God' recognizes it as a supernatural being), science will be unable to approve/disprove of the existence of God.
just because our definitions of god are that god is supernatural, doesnt mean he is, god is completely natural, but our tiny brains cant comprehend something of that nature being natural, so we call it supernatural.
Then develop a test to determine if god exists, if god is natural, such should be possible. Till then, belief in god can not be supported by any measure worth considering.
Lets start with this. To assert that something is true is to say that something is definite, unchanging, or completely self-consistant. So, to ask the question is there a universal truth is really asking is there something in the universe that is true. To answer this question we must not accept any bias whether it is religious or none religious. So i our assumtion is that anything is possible but then if anything is possible we also assume the possiblity that nothing is possible. Ultimately this statement cannot be true because if anything is possible that would mean it is possible for something and nothing to be possible at the same time which clearly contradict the whole idea in its' self. The answer is that only somethings are possible because nothing cannot exist no matter how you try to make sense of the idea its' just simply impossible. So there you have the final answer to your question. Only something can exist and nothing cannot that is a universal truth. So if something exist what is that something "universal energy", "god", etc. I have my own philosophy about this but i rather keep it to myself at the moment.
I challenge you athesist to explain to me how nothing can exist.
I have to say that I believe in science and God. I do not believe the two have to be mutually exclusive. Even if you said evolution vs. God. Again I believe they can both exist together.
While there's no real way to determine whether God exists or not, it is highly improbable. Scientists can really only work on that which has some noticeable aspect of existence.
The odds against something as complex as life existing are astronomical, yet it does, we can see it and take observations of it.
It would follow from the same logic that a God/Prime mover would be far more statistically improbable, being far more complex than life.
Until we can make some observation that hints at God's existence we can't use the scientific method to make any hypothesis in to a valid theory, therefore it will remain as such.
With this in mind I can say from my own view point that I don't believe that a God exists as I have no reason to (don't tell JakeJ I said that, he doesn't like it), but would change this view to skeptical when presented with some evidence .
I'd also like to ask why one wouldn't believe in science?
I agree with u dude n i believe in Science not in God as there is no signs of the existence of God till now. I believe in what i can see n not in what all disgusting things are there in stories n all.
You know what sad about this agruement if science and religion would come together to find a plausible explaination instead of tell a bunch stupid stories and theories people wouldn't have to decise who they want to listen. TODAY IS YOUR LUCKLY DAY! That because i have pausible explain for gods existant and would include science(from quatum to macrophysics) as the explantion. There just one problem. Alot christians are going to get MAD because my theory would say that jesus isn't and that christianity is really just a bunch of Bull@#$%!!!
But i'm not writing my theory until someone responds.
So... You're essentially saying that because space has the ability to transmit electromagnetic waves makes it a consious being? I don't quite understand how that makes sense.
I just remembered something according to Einstein BIOS condestate(forgive the spelling error) when particles are super cooled they exhibit wave like properties that explained in my theory. They clearly was compressed quatums of energy and decompress quatums moving back and forth. So my idea about particle formation is very plausible. Also Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong or needs revision because scientist already found particles that move faster than the constant. In addition time is a measurement base on perception, which is founded on consciousness, and finally exist which is comprised of the space to temporarily occupy and the energy you contain. What you percive as time may really just be measured rates of actions throughout the ever present of space. Beside there is no know actual substance time is comprise of that would suggest that it a mandable material capable of being warped.
And if you agree with my logic that would understand that space if it contain such infinite properties can't be created but must simply be a substance must and always exist. All matter is made up of space and exist within.
when particles are super cooled they exhibit wave like properties
Matter does not need to be super cooled to exhibit wave properties, electrons in the double slit experiment were not.
A Bose Einstein condensate is just another matter phase, like superfluidity.
Also Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong or needs revision because scientist already found particles that move faster than the constant.
Wrong.
What you percive as time may really just be measured rates of actions throughout the ever present of space.
What we perceive as time, is the difference between updates in our experience of our environment.
Beside there is no know actual substance time is comprise of that would suggest that it a mandable material capable of being warped.
Space and time are interdependent, a manifold in which a gravitational metric exists gravitons could arguably compose a something that time is made of, given that gravity affects time.
You know what sad about this agruement if science and religion would come together to find a plausible explaination instead of tell a bunch stupid stories and theories people wouldn't have to decise who they want to listen.
Why would a self-respecting scientist use non measurable ideas to support a theory?
What is wrong with a scientific theory? They have explained a great deal of what we see and even what we don't, religion has no place in science until anything measurable can be observed.
As a scientist myself, if I was told that in developing any ideas, I had to consult religious authority I'd give up science.
people wouldn't have to decise who they want to listen.
It's unfortunate for anyone that has to decide what they want to believe, if the presented facts dispute old knowledge then that's just tough shit.
That because i have pausible explain for gods existant and would include science(from quatum to macrophysics) as the explantion.
Bring it on.
Alot christians are going to get MAD because my theory would say that jesus isn't and that christianity is really just a bunch of Bull@#$%!!!
Ahh didums.
But i'm not writing my theory until someone responds.
What's the point of this carry on.
By the way, unless you have some peer reviewed and verified experimental data, and some concrete evidence you can't call what you have a theory, it will be a hypothesis.
I agree with u dude. There is no signs of the existence of God till now, so i don't believe in God. Rather, i believe in Science. I believe in what i can see but not in those disgusting stories.
Because its human nature to search for god, and if its part of our nature, the urge is there for a reason, maybe god is just an ego defense, but i think its alot more to it than that, and alot of scientists dont like to admit they believe in god because they dont want to be ridiculed by their fellow peers.
As stated before nobody can absolutely prove whether god exsists or not.
However, time was created from the 'big bang' as we know it, meaning that before this occurance there was absolutely nothing, including space matter and time itself.
This leads to the conclusion that if there was no time nor anything for that matter, then how possibly could there have been a creator in the first place?
Nevertheless it cant be proven so this debate will never be truly answered correctly.
I do believe in god but science comes first. All the arguments are right about there being NO PROOF of god. Like any other religion, we have a god that we christians look up to and when we look at someone else's religion we think their god is a phony/fake and vice versa.
Well for a start Science is a proven thing, thus there is no need to 'believe' in it! Science is the endevour to find out more, and religion simply gets in its way!
