Does God exist?

And this is a classic expression of a longstanding fallacy, friends. The job of science is to move from the known to the unknown, by empirical means - that is it. That science does not yet have the definitive cosmonogical answer, simply means, from a scientific perspective, there is more work to be done. It doesn't mean there must be a divine agent at the end of the heuristic rainbow, as I seem to see a lot of folks saying. To ascribe such agency, simply because the origin of our universe is truly the last unknown, is a classic fallacy.

 

It's like when people thought mice magically appeared. They never saw the mice come in, and thus thought, they magically happened. Or maggots on meat.

 

This is a never ending argument!

But I can say only one thing - There is a thin line between science and supernatural powers etc.

 

The line is a canyon, and infinitely wide canyon. On one side we have science, an empirical means of enquiry to which you no doubt owe your life to many times over, and the other, a hodgepodge of hokus pokus, magic spells, primitive superstitions and bogus remedies.

I can't think of two more distinctly different things than the "supernatural" and science.

 

Hey pingpong, you don't seem to have the least curiosity about what your god is made of, how does it proceed, what force (or whatever means) it used to do all you believe it did. That complete lack of curiosity that you share with your fellow religious really amazes me.

 

Yep, agreed. Much like when I once had a Muslim friend ask me (and curiously, it was asked of me here, as well - must be a common theist thing): how would you explain a car in the desert? (My answer then, as on this forum, was here).

Guess I'd also just like to repeat something, having looked over that earlier thread, on the same subject; sorry for the indulgence, but I think it's worthy food for thought:

 

Good opinions, interested to see more.

 

Maybe this will help with an understanding of how some things work. Hmm?

 

Cietifico, Who says I dont have this curiousity? I didnt know you knew me so well. Well you dont have the least bit of curiousity to question the atheistic status quo that there is indirect evidence for the existence of god. You cant really tell me that your acting on unbiased , and rational thinking yourself right? Then again, if christopher hitchens can act like this why cant all people lol. You also seem to get really defensive when I bring this evidence out. Listen , for the last time im not asking anyone to believe that god exists, just that there is enough rational, and indirect evidence that he may exist.

If a neo-atheist (not to be confused with all atheists who are rational and not belligerent) is going to be unbiased I suggest they start with their leader Chris Hitchens and start critisizing him for writing a book that a 12 year old can do a better job writing, and start critisizing him on his sexist and biggoted views on women, then I will consider you unbiased. Capish?

 

Source

It seems Chris Hitchens is not the only one questioning her actions.
I think her actions were normal for her considering her belief in a sick ideology that is called Catholic church.

 

Gworld as I said before if you have billions of people that revere the woman your always gonna have a small handfull of jealous, hatefull people. This is normal, but like hitchens, who are you going to believe ? A few people with their own agenda or the whole world who loved this simple woman.
Gworld , I hope hitchens isnt reading these posts. On the other hand hes probably drunk thinking about which political side he will be on tomorrow. I have an idea. I think we should hook up hitchens and Kerry and let them be friends. They can brush up on flip-flopping techniques

 

So according to you if a con man fools a lot of people but few wise people won't believe the con man, we should believe in con man because there are more fools than wise people?
You wanted source (your critic of Hitchens), so I showed you other sources than his writing but your answer is a total nonsense. I don't know why you are so obsessed with Hitchens drinking, if this is even true and not only a Christian lie. How would you like if he participated in these discussions and continuously mentioned your je*king off instead of having sex and not discussed the real issues?

You seem to be obsessed with mother Teresa and can not discuss her actions objectively, can it be because you are using her pictures as some kind of Christian playboy?

 

whoever has the evidence... found that well equipped hospital yet? didn't think so. it seems your "evidence" is nothing more than the majorities opinion. Have you ever actually used your own brain or do you just rely on being told what to do and think by mob rule?

gworld has nailed the final nail in the poisonous old hags coffin. And what is your response? silence.

 

Again Stox , he didnt provide anything but the opinions of a few people. It seems like you and your crew are back to the " if we cant prove anything, lets hit him with alot of posts filled with nothing but gibberish" theory. Its amazing to see 2 so called rational atheists reduced this low. maybe you guys hit the same pub that Hitchens frequents. Stox it seems like you have distanced yourself away from your leader Hitchens? Hmmmm, I wonder why? Is it because he doesnt know how to write or provide facts in a coherent style? Next time you try to provide facts from a book you try picking someone else other then the leader of the new atheist movement as well as the leader of the whiskey downing movement lol.

Your downfall in this debate is that you have an extreme one way belief in this new extreme atheist movement and you dont provide yourself the individuality to critisize it when it is wrong. As you know from my many posts I have critized the catholic church on more then a few occasions and i wont post one some catholic forums because alot have become political right win neocons. This is called having your own opinion stox. Try it sometime. It might free you and Gworld from your bonds of robotic inflexible opinionisms.

Im done with chris the whiskey man hitchens as well as this debate. This was way too easy.
NEXT

 

Like i say pong, it's easy to prove them wrong. just show us the well equipped hospital funded by this disgusting old witch and her billions.

If you think what people claim is wrong and she did spend the billions on helping people, show us it.

 

For those who don't believe, check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh_GalBsbMY&feature=player_embedded

 

LOL.
What a BS. Do people actually believe such emotional nonsense?
If there is a God, why he didn't help the makers of this video not to make a spelling mistake in a video that is suppose to prove his existence?

 

Why would a loving god make a worm that burrows into the eyes of children?

 

What does this childish link have to do with this conversation. Isnt this supposed to be the does god exist forum. I guess when the atheists are proven wrong and their drunken leader debunked they start lowering themselves to unrelated subjects.

Jackull since u asked why a loving god would create such a creature it means that you actually believe there is one

Now that we got the atheists acknowledging that there is a god I say thats a great first step.

This is getting way to easy when all of the atheists combined have to resort to an unrelated subject to get away from the real one

let me correct my statement. When i say all of the atheists, I mean all of the extremist atheists. Not the normal ones

I have another thread in mind but i will save it

Asking if god exists is like asking if John hitchens was drunk when he wrote that book on mother teresa

Ok I really have to stop posting on this one subject because im not used to winning debates this easy.
God bless you all