CreateDebate


Debate Info

92
55
science believers god believers
Debate Score:147
Arguments:128
Total Votes:159
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 science believers (65)
 
 god believers (44)

Debate Creator

perrie(18) pic



does god exist?

did god create our universe???? my answer is no... its all about science and astronomy!!anyone who says yes he does.. then prove it to me,scientifically.. because everything is related to science!!! and this thing too should be!!Undecided

science believers

Side Score: 92
VS.

god believers

Side Score: 55
8 points

The url of this debate says "/doesgodexist_21". The 21 means that there are another 20 debates with exactly the same title.

Side: science believers
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
4 points

This one will raise completely different points. I mean once an idea has been shown lacking or irrelevant no one uses it again.

Side: science believers
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
3 points

Are you being Sarcastic? Because it never raises new points. In fact, I believe it was url 20 that I said on the debate, what I said to you, about it literally never having new points.

Side: science believers
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
2 points

I searched (by literally just replacing the number 21 with the next lowest) an found the last one I participated on which was 16 I guess I said it on another God debate.

Side: science believers

I don't believe in God. I am not denying the possibility of his existence, but I don't believe.

When people are arguing, or in their own silly words ''proving'' God, they are all using arguments that could fit all religions. I had a debate with someone here the other day, saying that the Law of casuality tells us, that in order for time, space and matter to exist, it must have a creator that is outside time, space and matter.

That might well be, but .. who's to say it's the biblical God who created it all? That argument could as easily be said by a muslim, proving Allah, or whatever religion you can name.

Us, atheists can provide reasonable explanations for why we believe exactly what we believe. You, on the other hand, can only provide a reasonable explanation for why you are a theist, and not why you are a muslim, chrisitan, jew .. you name it.

There is no way of knowing for sure, but I've said this before, and I'm gonna say it again; Just because a story is really really old, doesn't make it trustworthy, if anything, it makes it less trustworthy.

Side: science believers
3 points

Probably not.

Side: science believers
3 points

The argument is flawed in that God created Humans in there present form, and they are the same as they are today. But as we have catalogued (through fossil evidence) the earth as being older than the Bible states, it would be impossible for the humans to not evolve. How do we know evolution exists? Through Gregor Mendel's experiments on peas (genetics). He found that different traits were apparent in different child peas, and considered, if the traits changed, or evolved from offspring to offspring, that they must have begun somewhere as something else over the million years Earth has existed. So if evolution is true, and the fact that the earth is older than the bible states, there is no time period that God could have created us in, and not have experienced the effects of Evolution, meaning, its impossible for him to exist.

Side: science believers
2 points

i dont believe god.

because god was created by poeple who have weak power and need someone to depend , god is artificial being.

even if sometimes being of god gives people hope, it is still not proved by science.

and if god exists and people's destiny is determined, no one is trying to live life to the full.

Side: science believers
2 points

http://www.jashow.org/televisionshow/complexity-gods-creation/ The Bible affirms that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .. As scientists discover the details regarding the universe’s creation .. they are finding an enormous level of complexity .. This complexity is so far beyond what had been previously expected or known that the information increasingly points to a supernatural Creator of all things rather than a universe evolving over time through chance or random processes

Side: science believers
2 points

Of course not! Now... having said that, and based on your avatar, are you related to Centifolia? (Or whatever the hell that whack-job's name was)

Side: science believers
1 point

i think god doesn't exist! its a stupid thing at which people believe blindly... and they don't have any proof for it!!!!!!

Side: science believers
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
2 points

Believing blindly, is believing in anything in which you have not personally observed. There are many things that you already believe blindly in. Are you stupid as well?

Side: god believers
1 point

first of all i am a science believer and doesn't believe in all other stupid things soo it's not me!!!!and have you ever experienced the feeling of god and what alll other things!!!!??

Side: god believers
1 point

I will always back science simply for the fact that they have done so much research, there is so much data and evidence that highly suggests that theory's such as the Big Bang did happen! However other than a 2000 year old book and word of mouth there is nothing to prove that God exists. For myself personally God will only be real on the day of Armageddon.

Side: science believers
2 points

Science is full of theories and God can be classified as a theory as well. Since science itself doesn't require absolute proof that a theory is right, God is as good of a theory as science mandates.

Side: god believers
Stryker(849) Disputed
4 points

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Source: notjustatheory.com

Side: science believers
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Where is the repeated process in Big Bang? Who has observed Big Bang? Big Bang has never followed the rules you demand of God, so it must also not be a valid theory according to science.

Side: god believers
1 point

you have proven the correct thing and yes there's a theory then a law to prove it and at last its proven and with a proof to prove some people who are opposing to it! and hence they become more aggressive because science had prove the thing.. what is wrong and what is correct!but it happens that if some people want to believe the scientific thing they can't because of their ego before going on to hte opposition side!and that they have to face taunting of the whole world.

Side: science believers
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Theories were hypotheses that have withstood testing from various disciplines that follow the same rigorous standards of the scientific method.

That is proposed ideas must be falsifiable, measureable and these tests must be repeatable.

The god idea is none of the above. Science classifies our natural world using the above.

Side: science believers
1 point

You misunderstand what the term 'theory' means in science.

The definition that most people seem to associated with 'theory' is more in-line with the actual definition of 'hypothesis.'

A hypothesis ultimately boils down to an educated guess based on observations that, for example, suggest a link between two different things. Experiments are designed to attempt to confirm and refute hypotheses, by assuming the hypothesis to be true when predicting the results of an experiment.

A theory, on the other hand, does not represent an educated guess- rather, it represents something just a hair below acceptance as fact. A theory is a hypothesis that has been upheld by all relevant experimentation to date, including in the eyes of those who are reviewing the experiments parameters for legitimacy. In other words, using it as a basic premise results in accurate predictions.

God could be called a hypothesis at best. If you want to call God a theory, you've got a big of work ahead of you.

1) Determine what predictions could be made under what circumstances, when Gods existence is taken as a basic premise.

2) Design experiments to test these predictions and circumstances.

3) Verify the results of the experiment match up with what was predicted.

4) Draw your conclusion from the experimental data

5) Allow other scientists to review your basic premises, experimental paramaters, end data, and conclusion.

6) Repeat steps 2-5 many times.

If you're able to make accurate, verifiable predictions using God as a basic premise, you can call God a theory. Until then, it's a hypothesis at best.

Side: science believers
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

6) Repeat steps 2-5 many times.

Repeat Big Bang and watch it's conclusions.

Side: god believers
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Since science itself doesn't require absolute proof that a theory is right

That is false. Science does require that. In science you need to prove the ideas that go into the theory. If you don't it is not considered a theory in science.

Side: science believers
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

I don't think that this is necessarily accurate; I do tend to agree that science itself doesn't require absolute proof. After all, we don't have absolute proof of a number of theories.

Rather, I believe it has more to do with the ability to make accurate predictions using the theory/hypothesis as a premise; hypotheses are yet untested, theories have passed numerous 'tests' and failed none that were not themselves fundamentally flawed.

Side: science believers
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

That is false. Science does require that. In science you need to prove the ideas that go into the theory. If you don't it is not considered a theory in science.

Big Bang briefly defined and questioned. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

Side: god believers
2 points

Deliberate reality is proof God exist. If I walk down a street and find a dime on the ground , I think nothing of it. If I walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, I can now suspect things. If I go further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each perfectly balanced and standing on their edges, I can now KNOW that this was deliberately done. It was no happenstance accident.

The dimes were well ordered by someone who did this intentionally. It was a purposeful designed event.

This is how we can prove God exist. Look at the Universe, ( The Dimes), how it was deliberately done. Intent is there. Design is there. This is an Anthropic way to prove God exist.

Side: god believers
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The universe isn't ordered like a stack of dimes. There are massive variations. You just proved God doesn't exist?

Side: science believers
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Please state how I proved God doesn't exist. You saying so, doesn't make it so.

Side: god believers
Mickiel(13) Disputed
1 point

The more mass, the more evidence of a great power; which again points to a God. How could such awesome mass, be birthed from such meaningless speculation as a black hole of nothing?

Side: god believers
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Things existing are proof of things existing. Not things existing and something that can't be tested exists.

You are assuming these patters are deliberate rather than a result of properties of matter themselves.

Patterns are a construct of how we recognize things. Recognizing physical patterns in reality points lets us discern things like the big bang.. Science tries to explain these via tests that can be verified as to why they exist as they do, like gravity, bigbang, properties of matter etc. You are just saying X did it.

That is not knowledge or proof, that is a belief.

Your logic still hits the issue of turtling all the way down.

Also if you disagree with a person....there are links below arguments that allow you to string a conversation together.

Side: science believers
Mickiel(13) Disputed
2 points

Things existing are proof of a creating existence. You are assuming that things are self created, therefore they self exist, I dispute that. Gravity is a law, in my view, law exist because a law giver exist. You think laws created themselves, or gravity created itself; I disagree with that.

What you believe requires MUCH more than belief or faith or theory, it requires that I take residence on fantasy island, something I refuse to do.

Side: god believers
2 points

God exist, and emotional content is proof of it. How could a thing like emotion come from random selection or nature, neither of which have innate consciousness of themselves ; nature is not a being with purpose, its a creation of God that men try to replace God with. Consciousness, another proof of God, is the governor of human behavior, and emotional content is an expression of a conscious tinkering of man by its creator.

Side: god believers
2 points

So why does it have to be "god"? Why couldn't a super-intelligent alien cat have created our "consciousness" and "tinkered our emotions"?

Side: science believers
1 point

yes obviously!!!!! its correct it can be aliens !! too and not only god!! science is always correct!

Side: science believers
MintyFlag(2) Disputed
1 point

But aliens don't exist within our solar system... why would aliens come to a different solar system, create life, and then leave us with out checking on us?

Side: god believers
Mickiel(13) Disputed
0 points

God is, period! And its absolutely nothing any of us can do about it. We can cry, complain, not believe, and try to be gods ourselves; but the earth is the Lords, and those who don't like it, can't do anything about it.

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

xcuse me!It's all because of harmonal changes not because of any god..!! if god was there why was there a need of crying! doesn't he want his devotees to be happy and not to cry!!!? think before you write!!

Side: science believers
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Disputed
1 point

God exist, and emotional content is proof of it

Incorrect. It isn't really even evidence anymore since we know that emotions are a mixture of chemical and energetic reactions.

How could a thing like emotion come from random selection or nature, neither of which have innate consciousness of themselves

They don't need such a thing. Emotions serve evolutionary advantage.

nature is not a being with purpose,

True, what is your point?

Consciousness, another proof of God, is the governor of human behavior, and emotional content is an expression of a conscious tinkering of man by its creator.

Another set of chemical and energetic reactions that serve evolutionary advantage. You do understand the basic premises behind Natural Selection, right?

Side: science believers
1 point

I believe in God for many reasons , and many of those reasons are scientific. I think science is taking us up, and up there somewhere is God. I think one can believe in both science and God. In fact, science used to be in the church, and many founding fathers of science were believers in God. They just got tired of " Church regulated science" and rebelled and left. That was what is known in history as the " Scientific Revolution."

One of the origins of science was a search for the divine. Or God.

Intelligence comes from intelligence; consciousness was born from a Consciousness. Our consciousness was not continuous with the idiotic bloodline of non speaking apes. We came from consciousness; from intelligence, how could humans originate from things far less than themselves, like magic rocks appearing from nowhere and evolving into conscious beings billions of years later?

Side: god believers
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Intelligence comes from intelligence; consciousness was born from a Consciousness.

From what do you base this assumption, and how do you identify 'intelligence' and 'consciousness?' Because both, as I understand them, do not generally represent binary phenomena but a sliding scale of less intelligent to more intelligent, less conscious to more conscious.

A number of animals can be demonstrated to have some form of self-awareness or 'consciousness' and a broad spectrum of intelligence (as measured via pattern recognition, problem solving, and a number of other measures) can be observed as well.

If we observe the development of a fetus- the initial zygote has no consciousness or intelligence, as it is lacking the physical structures necessary for these (neurons, primarily). These gradually develop and become more complex as the fetus matures, and still more after it is born- but actual intelligence and consciousness/self-awareness don't come into play until well after birth. If human development is not a case of intelligence coming from unintelligence, I don't know what is.

Side: science believers
1 point

How can increasing complexity be born from no complexity? How can we evolve from absolute nothing? Evolution is a result of design that was intended to grow and change, which points to a designer. Complexity points to a more complex existence , because intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. They did not cause themselves. To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence. Which would mean that first consciousness is the most powerful; and power explains our existence, much better than some wild lucky big bang blast from nowhere.

Reason explains why consciousness could not have evolved from brainless nothing. Reason MUST be birthed from reason.

Side: god believers
Stryker(849) Disputed
2 points

How can increasing complexity be born from no complexity? How can we evolve from absolute nothing?

Argument from Ignorance Fallacy

Evolution is a result of design that was intended to grow and change, which points to a designer. Complexity points to a more complex existence , because intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. They did not cause themselves.

Unsupported assertion.

To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence. Which would mean that first consciousness is the most powerful; and power explains our existence, much better than some wild lucky big bang blast from nowhere.

To claim that complexity requires a more complex entity, and then to say that entity does not require a more complex entity is an example of the logical fallacy referred to as "special pleading".

Reason explains why consciousness could not have evolved from brainless nothing. Reason MUST be birthed from reason.

Unsupported Assertion

Please present arguments for your currently unsupported assertions. I've attached a link to a list of common logical fallacies for your reference.

Supporting Evidence: Common Logical Fallacies (owl.english.purdue.edu)
Side: science believers
Mickiel(13) Disputed
1 point

Ignorance fallacy is a misnomer; Knowledge itself is a proof of God. Consciousness is awareness, how could we become conscious and aware, if we did not exist? We had to first exist, then be taught or given knowledge of that existence; again pointing to a creator as source. Ignorance cannot begin life, life cannot be born from ignorance.

It is unreasonable to state that reason can be created from unreasonable sources, such as chemicals and rocks. How in the world of reason could reason itself be born from imagined explosions in empty space? Explosions cause destruction, not life! That is unreasonable.

Awareness becomes awareness, when we become conscious, and we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of, therefore consciousness cannot be originated from unconsciousness.

Side: god believers
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Scientists freely admit that the issue of abiogenesis has not been solved. There are a few hypothesis though.

There is a contradiction to your stance.

...intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. 

The above is at odds with this statement below.

To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence.

To claim this consciousness exempt from needing a creator as per your first statement is a fallacy called special pleading. The use of this fallacy in this case is usually backed with petitions of principle that cannot be falsified, that is cannot be tested for a true/false outcome of the test.

Evolution provides a mechanism for increasing complexity over time. I suggest you get your science based information from science based sources.

Side: science believers
Mickiel(13) Disputed
1 point

Consciousness is the governor of human behavior, you would have us believe our behavior originated from scientific theory, when its obvious it originated from an intelligent source that implanted the human body and mind with the ingredients of a living conscious being. Gave us cells and membranes that were impossible for mindless nature to create from instantaneous fiat!

Side: god believers
1 point

I do believe that God exists.

It's often hard at times to prove to someone that God does exists, because a lot of the time people don't understand what you're trying to say, or get it. Almost all of the time that I've debated with someone, they always come up with an excuse to not believe that God exists. When really there is no excuse to not believe in God. Even when I give concrete evidence that God truly does exist they still say that I never gave concrete evidence.

I rather debate with someone in person about God because it's easier to listen to the person and to have a conversation. Debating someone online about God, there is always someone who doesn't address your points, or who obviously didn't read everything you wrote because a lot of the time, I've addressed their points, but I did but they just didn't read everything and they restate the question again when I've already answered their question but they didn't pay attention.

Side: god believers
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

When really there is no excuse to not believe in God.

I like to use the excuses you use to avoid Islam.

Even when I give concrete evidence that God truly does exist.

Dude, this is a great place for it. Why haven't you posted your concrete evidence on this site?

Side: science believers
Srom(12206) Clarified
1 point

I like to use the excuses you use to avoid Islam.

And what is that?

Dude, this is a great place for it. Why haven't you posted your concrete evidence on this site?

You're a perfect example of what I explained in my argument above. You don't read what I said and you only quote things that were in my argument and not the whole thing. And I have posted concrete evidence but people come up with excuses as I said above. Which clearly again you're a prime example of people who don't read or pay attention to everything I say. That's why I rather debate with someone in person then online.

Side: science believers
perrie(18) Clarified
1 point

ok so just give us an example of existence of god but remember it should be a science proven!!!!

Side: science believers
1 point

The morality Argument is proof that God exist. Its asking a lot for humans to accept that a destructive blast in empty space eons ago generated rocks and chemicals, which formed a planet, which birthed water, then somehow got the chemicals to form a fish, which eventually grew legs and crawled to the surface, and eventually evolved into an animal, which happened to know how to create humans, THEN give them morals.

Conversely, its more factual and logical to believe that a Great Moral being already had morals, and installed them into his children; giving morality a spiritual origin that is greater than ourselves.

Side: god believers
1 point

The Ontological argument proves God exist. If we can conceive in our consciousness the existence of God, then can we conceive of something that is greater than him? Can we out think God? Can we replace him with ourselves? Many men are trying, saying " I am God", and creation now is the creator. The reason we gather this gall, is because we are created in God's image, ( which means consciousness), and we begin to start thinking for ourselves, thus we conceive we are greater than God, or no longer need a God; we become gods unto ourselves.

We think like this because we came from a great thinker, and a little of it rubbed off on us.

Side: god believers
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The oncological argument proves God doesn't exist. If God existed, there wouldn't be cancer.

Side: science believers
1 point

yes and many more harmful diseases!!! which causes death and i think god doesn't want his believers to die early!!!!!!

Side: science believers
1 point

Atheism is proof of God, it would not exist without Theism. The term A-Theism, came from Theism. If God did not exist, why should Atheism? Atheism is the argument against the reality of God, if God was not real, then Atheism would not exist. The reason why Atheism has no future, is because of the reality of God.

Side: god believers
1 point

This is so awesome. You claim that Atheism exists because God exists, and because God exists Atheism will be wiped out. Brilliant. Please post more, this stuff is hilarious.

Side: god believers
1 point

\

I think Atheism exist because of Theism, or evidence of God. Why would a counter argument exist, if the argument did not exist, one exist because of the other. Atheism is the flip side of Theism, the same coin. Its just human consciousness primed in opposite directions, from the same origin. Its a hidden karma; the up and down which think they are not linked, because they oppose. Its distorted union.

An Atheist is a human who does not believe in its parent.

Side: god believers
1 point

Biblical Archaeology is proof of God. History is just the unfolding of human events ; and ancient humans always worshipped God, and humans have never stopped doing it, and a vast majority of humans have always considered God to be real, and history and Archaeology proves that. Archaeology dovetails with the bible in many ways. Too many ways to list here.

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

what do you mean by history and archaeology proves it!? it doesn't it was all in ancient times when man was a foolish person not knowing that he has brains!but now when we are knowing it we don't believe in it!!!! because we have found the answer to the question WHO HAS CREATED OUR UNIVERSE!! AND HOW??

Side: science believers
1 point

Language is proof of God, ( or communication). How do you suppose humans learned to communicate? Where did even the desire AND ability to fulfill that desire even come from? In order to have language, you must first have Consciousness, ( which is a proof of God); you must have vocal cords and a Throat. Now do you honestly think these things were just randomly self created with no purpose, but then decided to join and produce a voice? A voice with no thought of what to do or say with it?

No, the Genesis account has a lot contained in it. We were given language, and the ability to speak by our creator.

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

language is not a proof of god! its all because when man just started to know that they have brains and that is to use for their living they struggled for the communication between them!! when they struggled they found their answer to it as communication through sign languages and then writing and then speaking and etc.it was the man's hard work and his enthusiasm to lead a peaceful life! and just answer to my one simple question if god was there present at that time then why didn't he helped his creations!! and simply gave them the idea to talk directly!!! why did they have to use the sign language first and then making different sound by dancing and then finally talking??????

Side: science believers
1 point

Females are proof of God. The sheer beauty of them reflects a genius in creation. Why would nature even think in terms of male and female? For what? If we randomly exist, then our purpose would be randomly understood. The fact that females exist, PROVE that a creator wanted humans to reproduce, and animals as well. Which is why generation genes are also evidence of God. Nature is too stupid to figure that out. There is divine purpose in the female, we can track the mind of God through just the design in her body.

Don't give over this great creation to speculation and book theory. She is God's finest creation. Well ordered, and by the way, Order is another proof of God.

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

Its not because of god its just when a ape was created there were some genetic mutations and then a lady ape or whatever a women appeared or vice versa. frankly speaking... its all about science not god!!!!

Side: science believers

Why not both? What if God caused the Big Bang to create the universe? What if science and religion can both be right. And when the bible talks of how old the world is, a lot of it can be symbolic. Obviously everything wasn't created in one week, it's simply a story to tell how God made everything.

How could everything in the Universe be so perfect without a higher plan? How could a phenomenon like thought or emotion occur? And why have humans been worshiping Gods for thousands of years? We are not supposed to understand everything in the world, for faith is believing without seeing. Plus how could so many accounts of Jesus's miracles be written at completely different times and places yet all contain the same information? The evidence points towards a God. Anyway, I'd rather believe in a God that's not true and disappear when I die then not believe and him turn out to be real, condemning me to hell.

Side: god believers
1 point

Science is right about many things, they are taking us up, and I think up there somewhere is God; so in my view, science can only lead us to God eventually. God may have used banging power to create, but the credit is his, not some mythical theory. As far as this hell you mentioned, I do not believe in such a mindless place; its just a myth religion created, to punish humans forever for temporary crimes is insane, the punishment does not fit the crime. Why would Christ be tortured on this earth, only that humans be tortured forever?

The bible does not talk about how old the world is, its billions of years old, and the creation days had to last an unlimited unknown time; God was in no hurry.

Side: god believers

Good points, but if there is no Hell, where do the evil go after death? Hell is mentioned in the Bible.

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Clarified
1 point

if god already wanted to create the universe then why didn't he gave mind to all the persons !!!??? as fast as they came up landing on earth???? please talk sensible things!!!!!!

Side: science believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

first of all there is no hell and no heaven after getting buried we all are going underneath and get decomposed and get mix with the soil.. and become a type of manure for it!!! and how could you all believe in anything which you haven't seen with your eyes there were no higher plans.. it was a sudden explosion and a sudden creation of the universe.. and people believe it from thousand years because one person started the unknown thing it passed from generation to generation and got spread all over!and there were people who believed in it and people who didn't believe in it because they were intelligent and had a tendency to believe in real things which they have seen!!

Side: science believers

sigh

How long exactly do you people plan to beat the dead horse?

Side: god believers
1 point

All atheists go to hell!

You will pay in judgement day!

There is stronger evidence for a god, than anything science provides!

JOKES. !

Side: god believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

lets see naa... and what we will pay ?? what's the judgement day???? its all rubbish you are talking of.. and we aren't going to hell! because we science believers do not believe in hell and heaven.. those who believe let them go...!i think you understood my saying.... hahaha :P

Side: science believers
0 points

Are you suggesting that among Atheist, stupidity does not exist?

Side: god believers
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Who the hell are you talking to? Who mentioned stupidity?

Side: science believers
Mickiel(13) Clarified
1 point

I was clearly talking to Perrie. So kindly turn your anger where it is needed.

Side: science believers
perrie(18) Disputed
1 point

i am not saying like that !! but i think they are the people who believe in right things.. which are related to science and are hard to be proven wrong.!!!

Side: science believers