Humans Created God - For & Against

» Home » Miscellaneous

Humans Created God

I don't know how many in here have heard the principle Occam's razor. It can be paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the most likely." So what is more likely? That an all powerful and mysterious god created everything in the universe then decided not to give a shred of evidence for his actual existence. Or, that he simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him, so we wouldn't feel so small and alone.

Andromeda

10 May 2008 15:40

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

We didn't actually "create" him, but the concept of him instead. He doesn't exist.

Tromanator

09 Dec 2008 12:26

3 Comments

not being a jerk here....but how do you know he doesn't exist?

created

18 Dec 2008 21:54

Comment

Obviously gods were created by man to answer our fears and lack of understanding. Man also found that gods could be used as a form of control and for profit. So it continues today, but hopefully over time it will wane as it is doing in the more advanced countries of the world.

Evileye

19 Nov 2008 12:23

1 Comment

And just for the sake of posterity....I'll point to it again in case some of you have missed a key point...

Evileye says "OUR". Does anyone besides me see the problem with Evileye using the word "OUR" and Andromeda using "WE"?

justsumguy

21 Jan 2009 22:15

Comment

This clip explains my stance on the issue perfectly.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGv9NUYX3Jg

Specter87

18 Nov 2008 16:42

6 Comments

I'm joining Specter's side...

SlyOne

18 Nov 2008 16:47

Comment

In a way, humans created God.
They made the thought in their head he exists, whether he be real, or not.
It's not like God came down and said, "Hey, I exist."
People had to start thinking on their own.
Just like the Greeks and their sciences, their maths, their astrology.
Predicting the structure of an atom and so on.
The idea didn't just pop out and say, "{HEY I'M HERE."
It comes from the human natural tendency..to um, oh think.
I mean some people need to have a friend to talk to, some people don't have any.
I mean when you were a kid I know you had an imaginary friend that kept you sane. I know I did and it was a mouse, we talked all the time.
Now I'm not saying God is imaginary, but he's the closest thing to an imaginary friend we have.

I mean, this may not be the only reason.
Maybe people wanted a sense of perfection, something to aim towards being.
Like Beowulf, or Achilles.
These stories here showed the connections between Gods and Mortals and how the sense of being a God was what made the true warrior.
He was undefeatable and died by the sword just as he had lived by it.
The sense that you only have one life, and that you can only prove yourself with your strength, wits, or in the arts.

Humans didn't, in a sense, create God..because as the story goes he created us.

I'm not trying to say God isn't real, I'm trying to say God made it that way so people's faith in him would be stronger than ever.

It's like pushing someone's head down in wrestling, they'll be trying to push right back up and the end result is they build that force and muscle to when their head is release, pop...their head has been higher than ever.

You make a person fight against something, their resistance builds.
God don't make no mistakes.

Genkaku

18 Nov 2008 11:42

10 Comments

Well, since I’m the “Definer of Truth”, I concur with what you stated. As for now, I have to get back to working on my new book “I Agree There Is Some Truth To This Debate’s Heading”. Look for it in a store near you (prices may vary; satisfaction not guaranteed).

Hizashi

18 Nov 2008 11:55

Comment

I’m not sure I can say anything that hasn’t already been said, but I can agree that there is some truth to this debate’s heading.

Hizashi

03 Nov 2008 01:36

29 Comments

Thanks Hizashi for chiming in on my debate.

Andromeda

03 Nov 2008 01:42

Comment

I said I could agree that there is some truth to this debate’s heading. I didn’t claim it was the infallible truth itself. Yes, I’m using my opinion on this one. Yes, what I agreed to cannot be “proven” in the sense that objective things can. But last time I checked, neither could anything within the posts on the other side either. Can you “prove” anything concerning the “truth” on this matter to anyone else Justsumguy? If I’m not mistaken, you were also on the same side of this debate. I hardly see you getting so worked up from posts on the opposite side of such debates that are also entirely opinionated. Why the sudden irritation with mine? There is no “evidence” to debate with here. No objectivity whatsoever on either side of the debate. What do you want me to say? “No, it’s entirely impossible that human beings could create a god of their own”? That’s not what my opinion is on this debate. And a correction need be in place as well. I don’t normally debate with “the silly god people” about subjective matters concerning  their beliefs unless they either directly ask or challenge me to. I usually stick to scientific claims made by “the silly god people” to support or discredit something. If you’d inform me of what science Andromeda improperly used here in this debate, I’d be happy to correct it for her. But I saw none. So I corrected none. If it would satisfy your unusual frustration, direct me to posts or comments where Andromeda has used science improperly and I’ll type something on that debate correcting it. As you said to me a few days ago on another post, “I think you’re overreacting on this one”.

Comment

I'm not making any religious or theoretical argument here. I spelled it out and it was ignored. I'll do it again.

The title of the debate is conclusive.

The description of the debate starts off well enough, and then says conclusively that there is not a shred of evidence presented by the defined god. I can’t believe I have to spell out the error in making that statement so I’m not going to. Call me pompous.
Then the author makes the mistake of saying “we” create a god when we all know from her entries in this debate that she is clearly above doing such a thing. This would suggest the obvious, which all of us pompous idiots know, that some humans can and probably do create their own god. Big whoop. That was difficult.

Andromeda infuses her arguments with statements that strongly suggest she is living in reality as opposed to those who are not. She usually tempers this with her tolerance of those people while her sympathizers ignore the fact she is saying these people are delusional.

I see it the same as religious people talking about how non-judgmental they are while insisting non-believers are heading for a well-deserved buttkicking from God.

Fact is, I reserve the right to go after whichever side I choose. Unlike some of you, I don’t reserve my attacks for building my cause. Come whining to me after one of you posts a debate, which attacks your stance as I do. Big babies. Nanana-boo-boo

By the way, of course I’m overreacting and being pompous. Amongst other things. Too much agreeing lately. Time to stir things up. I'm sorry if I suggested anyone was delusional or that the god they pray to everyday is a fantasy. I would also like to apologize to those families who have given their entire lives to helping and teaching the less fortunate in foreign lands by saying they are wasting their lives believing in their fantasy.

Trust me...I'm being nice. Some of you have no idea what you're talking about.

Happy Genkaku? Will that dry the tears?

Comment

The same here. I’m not making any scientific argument. But that still doesn’t explain why you’re acting like a child who’s gotten their toy taken away. My post was one measly sentence. What it said was that I thought there could be some truth to the debate’s heading. Your post was also on the same side of the debate as mine, meaning you probably think there is at least some truth to the debate’s heading as well, otherwise I’d most likely see your post on the other side indicating that you completely disagree. What was in my post that wasn’t also implied by your own on the same side of the debate? Regardless, the title of the debate may be conclusive, but my statement wasn’t. My sentence, in no way, inferred the debate was entirely legit. If I had agreed with the entire premise of the debate, I wouldn’t have used the word “some”, instead leaving the term out of the post I typed.

Andromeda’s debate is completely subjective. Is that what you wanted to hear? No, I’m not just saying that to please you. The debate really is. But since you supposedly want to see me type it so badly, I thought I would. I didn’t think I had to reveal something that should be so obvious to you of all people. I never agreed with everything Andromeda stated. I never agreed with Occam’s Razor being the solution to this scenario. I never agreed there wasn’t a shed of evidence for any god’s existence. I specifically said I thought there could be some truth to the debate’s heading, not its description. You seem to be getting frustrated with things I never even did. But, since according to you, I have no idea what I’m talking about (even though my post was one sentence and didn’t really imply much of anything), please assist this undeserving peasant with your infallible gift of knowledge and explain to me the correct way to think while describing what my opinion should be on this matter, since, after all, everyone else doesn’t know what they’re saying and you apparently do. Demonstrate how my opinion is wrong and yours is right. I can't wait to find out.

Comment

JSG, you only prove my point further.
Calm down, really.

"Fact is, I reserve the right to go after whichever side I choose. Unlike some of you, I don’t reserve my attacks for building my cause. "

Dang, that makes good sense.
But it's like disagreeing with yourself.
And second you did it like a child.

"Too much agreeing lately."

Wow, yea'..you're the one on the agreeing side.
Get out of here with that.

You've debated with other people on the same side as you, but you did it as more of a, "Explain why you put that, or tell me what you mean, or why did you post on this side?" Type deal.

Not, "Truth is, Andromeda gets away with the same thing you won't let the silly god people get away with. Over and over and over and over. "

You have debated plenty and not lost your cool.
To me, you are the one being subjective, because in no way do I see this debate title being subjective, nor is the title confusing, it is in the dang description itself.
You made it that way.

You're mad at something else and taking it out on here, so chill out, dry your tears, so you can see I'm not crying about it.

Just trying to help you up out it. BEZ. And stop with the "Nanana-boo-boo's".

Comment

One more time. I asked what Hizashi meant. I offered what I think Hizashi meant. I said FINE.

If the "truth" extended past what I offered, it would be a statement made in error.

Then i offered up the fact that Andromeda gets free reign to insert the word "evidence" (which for Andromeda is defined by science).

Then Hizashi (taking what I just described) decided to start asking me about proving things.

I'm not going any further.

Let's get one thing straight between us. I play these little reasoning games with the collective group, but make no mistake, I consider discounting the evidence of spiritual relationships to be extremely arrogant. I think the arrogance is constantly blanketed in a cloak of open-mindedness that is a lie.

Like I said, I will debate those of a spiritual nature, but I do it on their ground. I will challenge their claims, but not by suggesting their entire being is delusional.

I will debate with Hizashi concerning cosmology. But I'm not going to attempt to say Hizashi is living a life trying to hide from God. I could. I can take this to the same playing field that is constantly used on this site. Saying people are fooling themselves. Lying to themselves. In denial.

Like the lyrics to the song, I don't need no one to tell me about God and Heaven, I look in my daughters eyes and I believe.

People who attempt to discount such belief are being arrogant. It doesn't matter if they look into their daughters eyes and don't believe. For them to be the judge of the other persons belief is idiotic arrogance.

Great to describe what you see when you look into your daughters eyes. Say you see evolution and it's beauty. Fine. If someone judges what you see based on their belief I will be the first one to hammer down.

You are talking to someone whose family lived for years with no running water, no electricity, no doctors, ministering to one of the most primitive people on this planet. I know what it is to fight for survival. I know what it is to live on this planet. I also know how real God can be. Not just to me but many others. Not just people from my background, but people as far removed from my background as possible.

Again, I'm not saying it proves anything. I'm not saying you need to believe or else. I'm just saying when you discount the personal relationships others have with God, I will be more than happy to start slinging mud. I won't cry about it. i won't beg you to stop. I won't appeal to your decency. I'll just throw manure in your eye and laugh.

Comment

Thanks for the explanation. More or less what you stated before was what I meant. I meant that people can, and probably do, invent their own kind of god, even if their god has only slight differences with another. You said in your first comment that such a viewpoint isn’t what this debate is about. Granted. The debate heading and description, from the way I read it, implies that “God”, in the Christian sense I’m assuming, was created by humans. However, yet again, I must point out that I concluded only seeing “some” truth to that debate’s heading. I mentioned nothing about it’s description, yet you seem to gather that because I did not I agree completely with what it says. Again, I must ask, do you see some truth to this debate’s description? I answered the question you wanted, now please answer mine. You must see at least a little bit, otherwise, as I said before, your post would probably be on the opposite side of the debate. I never implied my understanding on the topic was the undeniable truth. I didn’t claim any type of evidence supported my one sentence post. That’s why I kept asking what you had to offer that I didn’t, since what I stated seemed to give you the impression I was concluding something evidential rather than opinionated. I must ask, since you took the liberty of explaining so much you don’t like concerning such subjects. Within my post or comments on this debate, did I ever discount spiritualism from anything? Did I state someone was delusional for what they believed, or agree with Andromeda, or another, that anyone was? Did I ever even say anyone on this debate was wrong on any topic they spoke on? As far as I know of, I did none of those things you claim to despise. I haven’t even been coming to this debate until now. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I haven’t commented on anyone’s post, much less refuted or corrected anything they said. Since you seem to want me to refute Andromeda’s misconceptions about science so badly, I will.

"I've never seen any proof derived from testable observations or experimentation that says there are gods."

If the testable observations are scientific, you never will. Because science doesn’t concern the supernatural.

"The myth of creation and the existence of gods were simply fables and stories that ancient people told so they could explain why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, it has survived into an age of science and reason."

Could be. But simply finding a reason for something doesn’t make the event or occurrence so. You’ve got to have more than just a reason for a theory in order to demonstrate the idea’s validity in science.

"Science deals with what is not what could be, we have abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang, and we know how these processes work. We don't know everything there is to know about these processes but were still learning. Did these processes take place because of supernatural happenings? No, on the basis of science, no supernatural powers from any god have had a hand in the creation of anything. Why, because there is zero evidence to suggest that they did."

Supernatural occurrences have no say so in science not because science refutes them but because a supernatural phenomenon is just that. Supernatural. Science deals with the natural world. A supernatural phenomena, in the definition most use, is not even in the range of science. Science can’t prove or disprove anything concerning the paranormal. It’s like saying the Chronicles Of Narnia disprove the Harry Potter series. How can they? They have nothing to do with one another. You can claim whatever you want so long as it's in the supernatural range and science can’t touch you.

"To have the ability to prove gods through scientific means is the only way to prove to me and countless others that any god exists."

The only type of god science will ever be capable of detecting is one that is in fact natural, not supernatural. Other than that, a barrier has just been placed up ruling out all other possibility foreign to scientific evidence.

Satisfied Justsumguy? If not, find me more quote from Andromeda, or anyone else, that deal with misuses of science and I’ll correct them for you until your heart is all warm and fuzzy inside.

Comment

See, you're doing it again. I said I would buy it and gave no indication that I had changed my mind. lol

Seriously, there are two main themes to this debate.

1. The title which is a conclusive statement that cannot be proven. I'll write that off as an attention getter. It is automatically invalid.

2. The “most likely” being defined as all things being equal, which is the simplest?
The definition of the first choice is anchored by a biased claim which does not reflect the views of most people who would defend the first choice.
The definition of the second choice is anchored by specific criteria.

I still say there is no truth presented here. Again, you and I would agree that it is debatable whether or not some humans have created gods so they wouldn’t feel small and alone.

But the presentation of this particular debate deserves much criticism for many reasons.
Not unlike many on this site. Just seems to me that the author gets off easier with this major blunder than some of the seemingly more immature posters who bring us other major blunders.

It’s possible I’m being biased but I’m trying not to be.

Comment

That’s what I was trying to say earlier on. I most often correct scientific misuses. But there’s no science involved here. Occam’s Razor isn’t scientific, it’s philosophical. The flaw that arises when using Occam’s Razor is that the answer to the problem depends entirely on what “the simplest solution” is to the person in question. I could take the two choices offered by this debate’s description and present them to one hundred different people. Not all of them will think the same choice is the “simplest solution”. Hence, subjectivity arises throughout. Whichever side of this debate people are on is going to most likely depend on which choice they consider to be the “simplest solution”.

I know what you’re saying. I didn’t criticize Andromeda’s debate for being subjective like I do other’s. But I already mentioned I didn’t even come back to this debate until just recently. And normally Andromeda’s posts, if I read them at all, don’t catch my attention because, even if they do contain bad science, there are usually much worse uses of science that are being displayed that catch my eye first. I normally only type something on debates that either contain one of the top five most recent posts and comments or are one of the most recent debate’s created. Other than that, I either don’t know what’s going on in a certain debate or don’t care. For example, the “God Does Not Exist” debate. I posted on that debate a while back and also typed up a few comments. But after that, I haven’t even been back to that debate, even though I’m sure plenty of bad science is being used. It’s not that I avoid one person’s bad science and target another’s. It’s just whatever gathers my attention most. I'm sure it's the same with you. I most often see you debating with non-religious people on this site more than the religious ones and that your posts are longer and more detailed when doing such. I doubt it's because you avoid the arguments of the religious, but more so are simply going by what you consider to be a bigger problem.

Comment

Wow Hizashi. I'm really surprised. It's just the opposite.

I'm here to debate with the religious. Here’s my thinking on why there are so few religious debates and I’ll leave it to you how it could explain why you’re thinking what you are about me.

I’ve tried to sneak a few through the side door but I’ve pulled up some religious topics and I know exactly what happens when one is introduced.

The first thing that happens is our more militant anti-religious clan post that the debate is invalid because either God doesn’t exist or the Bible is the buy bull.

This brings out the religious militants who are offended, they respond and there she goes.

If evolution or cosmology is introduced there is a similar pattern. I don’t know which came first.

You are missing quite a lot when it comes to what I debate. I slam heavy on the abortion threads. I slam heavy on the history of the Roman Catholic Church along with its offshoots and their effect on world history. I slam almost every single “Christian” post which suggests the author is above some sort of sinner they are describing. I guess these are on topics you don’t frequent.

And yes, against my better wishes, I slam the nonbelievers who are doing the exact same thing which prompted me to come here and slam the religious. I slam the holier than thou, even when they claim to not believe in holiness.

What do you really think I want Andromeda to say? Do you really think I’m pushing for, “thanks justsumguy for leading me to God”? Is that what you think I’m trying to get from you? All I want Andromeda to say is, “It’s possible that justsumguy has a personal relationship with the perfect creator”.  Debate it. Discuss it. But if it’s going to be constantly dismissed as not possible or reasonable, I’m going to fight the IDIOCY of the thought process which is behind such IDIOTIC reasoning.

Mine is a different debate. It is not about what anyone needs to do. It’s about flawed thought processes. People want to blame them on religion or not believing in God. Neither is to blame. These thought processes are driven by arrogant ignorance and they are behind most of the intolerance we see.

I’ll try and be more tolerant of thinking which breeds intolerance but it won’t be easy.

Comment

Here’s a theory for the reason why I think you target the nonreligious and why you think I target the religious.

1. A debate is created.

2. If the debate deals with religious issues, you’ve stated you’d probably be there but I probably won’t. If the debate deals with scientific issues, I’ll probably be there but you might not. If it deals with both, we’ll each likely be there.

3. Three outcomes.

A. The debate is religious and you’re there. Scientific claims might arise, but are less likely if the debate is strictly theological (but normally do nonetheless). Hence, I probably won’t be at that debate. If I do post on it, what is typed will most likely concern science (usually being used in the hands of a misguided theist).

B. The debate is scientific and I’m there. Religious claims might arise, but are less likely if the debate is strictly scientific (but normally do nonetheless). Hence, you probably won’t be at that debate. If you do post on it, what is typed will most likely concern theology (usually being used in the hands of a misguided atheist).

C. The debate is scientific and theological. We’re both there doing what is explained above.

4. Our paths only cross normally for the reasons explained above. Consequently, I assume you target nonreligious posters more often and you assume I target religious posters more often since that’s what we both usually see happen.

5. You claim to be here to debate theology most often and I claim to be here to debate science most often. Anything relating to theism catches your attention, thus you debate the subject. Anything scientific catches my attention, thus I debate the subject. Though it seems like we avoid one type of person and target another, it is but an illusion based on the fact that our paths only cross when we’re normally targeting a certain kind of argument (nonreligious for you and religious for me) relating to the debate at hand. The truth actually being, you debate against the religious quite often and I debate with atheists quite often.

Also, you don't have to struggle with the question of "Which belief breeds intolerance?" The answer is neither to me. People breed intolerance, not the beliefs themselves.

Comment

"If God created the universe, who created god?"

SlyOne

01 Nov 2008 02:14

6 Comments

The only answer I've heard from a theist is god is eternal. What does that mean; I'm not sure because I've also heard theists say that something can't come from nothing (i.e. the big bang). So you still have the question of where god came from. We created him according to Occam's razor is the simplest and most straight forward answer.

Andromeda

01 Nov 2008 15:55

Comment

I'll answer Andromedas question. Let's see what kind of response I get...

Eternal means no beginning and no end. Nothing other than eternal.

Not sure what you mean with the big bang analogy. Science is what claims something can't come from nothing (for obvious reasons). Sciences biggest hurdle is where did the first thing come from (for obvious reasons). Science must base it's proposition on the first thing always existed (for obvious reasons).

This particular "theist" suggests eternity (which I have already defined) created something in it's own image (that would be you) by creating something other than eternity (which would be temporal - for obvious reasons) and bringing you (eternal - in the image of the creator) into being as a seperate being (not a direct extension of eternity).

You were created from eternity into other than eternity. Eternal and temporal. This created the dilemna we are both well aware of and is the subject of much debate. Simple numbers which define a specific quantity that can be added or subracted until the mathematician runs out of time. The mathematician knows he/she will run out of time but also knows the numbers can be added and subtracted for an unlimited time as long as time is not limited which it always seems to be. Since it seems to be, it can't be proved that it is, even though it seems to be and always is until we take into account the possibiltiy of it doesn't always have to be what it seems as we take our last breath.

I hope that in the future you take this theists's suggestion into account when speaking of theists.

Comment

I agree with Hidell. If God wasn't real, people would be so fearful of everything. This way, they can trust that there is someone to save them from harm. Physcologicly [don't know how to spell it], if you know you are going to be safe from harm, chances you will. If anyone has read or watched The Secret, you would get it.

imright20

08 Oct 2008 22:22

1 Comment

I am against The Secret And Rhonda's religion of:

"pull yourself up by merit of your own efforts for ye are gods and do not need God Almighty".

I am against this, on the grounds that it is untrue:

"For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly".(Romans).

We, are ALL born into Sin, and are Ungodly!
We need a Saviour because we cannot save ourselves.

"For we all like sheep have gone astray, and have turned, every man, unto his own way, and God hath laid on Christ, the iniquity of us all".
(Isaiah 53).

We all need a Saviour.
Jesus Christ.

Scorpion

08 Oct 2008 22:27

Comment

Technically speaking even assuming that one true god exists that still leaves the thousands upon thousands of false gods that we have created across the history of man.

On a more fanciful note, your debate title reminded me of reading a mad Jesuit named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s book called, “The Phenomenon of Man” when I was young. His theory was that life was evolving towards godhead through increasing complexity and communication abilities. And writing in the thirties he was eerily accurate about the development of the internet age. Anyway I remember thinking as I read the book that if life was able to evolve to the point where one single spark of life was able to perfectly understand and communicate with itself and the universe, then that would be god. And in becoming god it could go back to the beginning and create the universe. Sort of like a divine perpetual motion device.

finsch

07 Sep 2008 20:40

Add a Comment

I am not one for organized religion, but I wouldn't knock it either, as it helps a lot of people steer a course in their lives. I don't think anyone can or should, force views on others but lead by example. People will find what they are searching for, if the door is left open.

keepmindok

01 Sep 2008 01:26

1 Comment

that is pretty much my thought too.

every man for himself thought wise.

sylverwyld

02 Nov 2008 01:20

Comment

WOW.

Somebody in here finally really came up with a challenging and intriguing debate topic, and really presented it well.

GREAT JOB.

Okay, here is why I posted on this side of this debate instead of the other side where you would expect it:

Even though I KNOW there is a God in heaven, I posted here.
You may not like this, but from a certain point of view, I agree with this side of this debate:

Humans DO have a built-in spiritual side, that will look for Something Bigger Than Themselves......even IF it didn't exist!
And this is true that we can in our minds create something we need to feel, to feel better or safer.
It is just a survival tactic humans have.
The power of the mind is really strong in humans.
Connected to intelligence and to spirituality.

So just because I know there is a God, does not mean that this debate is untruthful: This debater phrased it so well, that I was forced to go ahead and say, yes, we CAN create "a god" if we need one to feel better about life on earth or we need to feel safer in our environments.
So, yes, this debater does make a valid point, I think.

Scorpion

29 Aug 2008 20:55

1 Comment

Well, thank you very much; I'll take that as a compliment. Finally someone on here is considerate and not rude.

Andromeda

29 Aug 2008 21:26

Comment

So what? Who cares what humans create? If they create god because they feel so small and all alone...the question would be why do some feel this way while others are immune to the feeling.

Do these others feel large and together? Or do they feel small and alone but can simply overcome such feelings with reason based on their temporary reality?

Either way, you can bet these small and certain to die creatures will be arrogant about it.

justsumguy

18 Aug 2008 00:25

9 Comments

Some are mature.
Someone on here gavea good quote, which I shall steal.
"In a burning house a child will curl up in a corner and hope that the fire will dissapear or hope someone else saves them. Whereas a mature adult will look for an exit."
Thus separating, those who can cope and those who can't.

ScottyRAWR

18 Aug 2008 00:28

Comment

Hiya JSG. It may be a question that has its roots more in emotion than reason but let me tell you something of my take on it, not as a rebuttal but just as an example of a different approach. You suggested earlier that by assigning a finite nature to life it removes the point of reason. By this I am guessing you refer to all strivings past the base visceral necessities. However for me it is by its very brevity that life becomes such a poignant treasure. By being based in the temporal it makes each irreducible moment a vast well of opportunity not to be squandered. Perhaps it is that I see the eternal in each single point of time. Once something has happened then it can’t unhappen, it can’t be changed, and is therefore eternally as you experienced it. Each moment as a brushstroke that finally becomes the completely unique portrait of your life. And as there comes a time to step away from any endeavor and call your work finished, to never end would be to never be complete.  
And while I know that this is not your philosophy I ask you to acknowledge that it is hardly sterile and hopeless even though it is based in the temporal. I actually sent a very similar comment to you on that debate that was removed some time back, and have meant to restate it for some time now.

Comment

As usual an excellent response.

But finsch...you said it..."Perhaps it is that I see the eternal in each single point of time. Once something has happened then it can’t unhappen, it can’t be changed, and is therefore eternally as you experienced it."

To give it validity you are going to have to link it to eternity. Your descriptions above are dang near perfect. Take away eternity and your poignaint treasure is no longer yours. It never existed. There is no you.

Doesn't matter how long it takes. One universe colliding with another and starting it all up again. Whatever. It simply is not reasonable when eternity is taken from the equation. That doesn't mean any of this has to be reasonable. But the fact that we reason is EVIDENCE of eternity. It is OBJECTIVE evidence. It's not conclusive. But it is a fact that it is evidence.

In my real "reason", eternity is perfect. It's the one thing I wish I could enable you to consider. Perfect. You and I know it's a dirty word. But I know it can be defined and without it there is nothing. No answer. No eternity. I'm not talking about an imperfect eternity. I'm not talking about infinity. You said,

"And as there comes a time to step away from any endeavor and call your work finished, to never end would be to never be complete."

I know that I will be forever where I will be complete. I know that I will be forever new.

I know these things because they have to be. Not because the Bible says. Not because it's the way I "feel". I know it because it is the ONLY REASONABLE answer.

Like I said, I'll give way to the fact the answer could be unreasonable. But I do not see the point in pursuing it.

If someone (you would be fine) was to offer me up something which is better than one of my "beliefs"...it would become part of my belief system in a second.

You describe something beautiful. You have to remember, I consider you eternal. What you described as your link to the temporal is right on. It is more important than you realize. It is making you what you are, and what you are will be added to perfect eternity. It is the greatest thing that could ever be accomplished by ANY god, or by ANY fantasy, or by ANY chance...do you see what I'm saying?

We can accept, or believe, or not believe...or whatever. But if it was ONE thing that could be KNOWN...there is only one thing it could reasonably be. Perfect eternity. Anything else could be anything.

Thank you very much. (bow) : )

Comment

I agree
Because without belief a god is nothing.
And humans believe in their god.
Ergo humans created god.

ScottyRAWR

18 Aug 2008 00:08

Add a Comment

I do agree that man did create god....and if this god did exist i would like a sign of some sort...like a huge cloud or something that talks....just something makes me think....its made up...you know like the whole gay marriage thing...if the bible says its wrong...then why are we legalizing it...hmm...sees a little weird doesn't it.......

Preppyboi4

20 Jun 2008 04:17

Add a Comment

I could have voted in the red column but there is some truth to that misleading title. Most gods are made up.

Stranger

02 Jun 2008 19:48

1 Comment

Most gods are made up.
I agree

v00v

03 Nov 2008 02:21

Comment

Without a doubt, man created God in his own image, horribly flawed, capricious and bizarre. Then man declared God to be perfect, especially when God's being a complete jerk. Go figure.

Cephus

11 May 2008 09:43

Add a Comment

God is born from fear : Fear that the world is a dangerous, chaotic place in which we could be felled at any moment by an alligator, a lion, a disease, or a bullet. Recognising the dangers which exist in the world is frightening and, to some, almost incapacitating. God is the salve on that wound. If everything is surreptiously controlled or influenced by invisible magical beings, whose favour can be acquired and maintained by performing certain actions, then believers are shielded from the dangers of the world, or so they believe, as long as they continue with their superstitious rituals.

This is why religion has fallen away in civilised countries in modern times. The daily dangers that used to confront us are now much less pressing. The average lifespan used to be about 30. People died all the time in childhood. Disease would cut swathes through whole communities. With modern science we have fended off many of the things that used to frighten us. With less fear, we also have less religion. People don't feel the same compelling need to have a magical being protecting them as they did before.

Hidell

10 May 2008 16:52

6 Comments

Less fear, we also have less religion. I never thought about that way, but your right.

Andromeda

10 May 2008 17:27

Comment

So how did the universe come into existence? And humanity?

Spartan33

07 Mar 2009 01:06

1 Comment

science

caityjaney

27 Oct 2009 15:49

Comment

Who created us then?and are bodies they just happen to function perfectly with precise detail like a car.and guess what there was a creator for a car.how are man and women precisely made for one another?why are there different seasons .why do people get aids from sexually sinning.why do evolutionist use the time line b.c. And a.d. Before Christ and after death.people created dinosaurs to i suppose.wow but we continue to create all these problems amonst us were way to brilliant.we just don't think we need god mns pride is what leads to all this destruction in the first place

/

kkkkkk12

07 Dec 2008 04:42

4 Comments

Thank you for your response first of all. Let's go over what your argument is.

"Are bodies they just happen to function PERFECTLY with precise detail like a car?"

Have you ever heard of disease and illness? Broken Bones, heart attacks, and cancer, I could go on with the things that could happen to your body. Our bodies do not always function perfectly. If our bodies were perfect we would not have diseases, our bones would withstand the greatest of pressures. A car is not a perfect machine either.

"And guess what there was a creator for a car."

Yes there was a creator for the automobile. Again you are comparing something that is mechanical to something that is biological, that’s a big leap right there. Cars can't move on their own, they can't think for themselves, we have to operate them. So if god created us, who created god? If the point you are making is that something can't come from nothing. This is a question that has to be answered. Where did god come from?

"How are man and women precisely made for one another?"

I take it you've never heard of divorce? What about gay peoples? Men and women are not precisely made for one another. Evolution can answer your question as to why male and female organisms are made to reproduce, and why the parts fit. I suggest you study the evolution of sexuality and reproduction before you debate about that.

"Why are there different seasons?"

Is this a serious question? Did you know that the earth orbits the sun and has the influence to cause seasons? Even the moon plays a part in the seasons. Saying we have seasons does not give proof of gods existence because we can explain it without saying "god did it." Don't you realize that by saying "god did it" you are killing history? You kill the very fabric of understanding something, the very fabric of knowledge. Because instead of studying the happenings of this universe we could boil it all down to "god did it." That would be sad.

"Why do people get aids from sexually sinning?"

Aside from your grammar being faulty, this statement is full of holes. I suggest you study the history of the aids virus to discover its origins. The aids virus is present all over the world but especially in poorer countries such as Africa. This is a result of poor health care not sins.

"Why do evolutionists use the time line B.C and A.D.?"

First off you are assuming that all evolutionists do this. One thing I want to make very clear is that not all atheist and evolutionist are created equal; they all have different views and opinions. While I might be an atheist and evolutionist I do believe that religion has a place in this world. I also believe that religion is an important part of human history itself. Using the "Before Christ" and "After Death" in dates of history is tradition more than anything, and it's something hard to get away from. It's been used since time immemorial, and will probably continue to be used for a long time to come.

"People created dinosaurs to i suppose."

I won't respond to that ridiculous comment.

P.S. Work on your grammar, so people will take you more seriously in a debate.

Andromeda

20 Jan 2009 19:38

Comment

Thank you for your response first of all. Let's go over what your argument is.

"Are bodies they just happen to function PERFECTLY with precise detail like a car?"

Have you ever heard of disease and illness? Broken Bones, heart attacks, and cancer, I could go on with the things that could happen to your body. Our bodies do not always function perfectly. If our bodies were perfect we would not have diseases, our bones would withstand the greatest of pressures. A car is not a perfect machine either.

"And guess what there was a creator for a car."

Yes there was a creator for the automobile. Again you are comparing something that is mechanical to something that is biological, that’s a big leap right there. Cars can't move on their own, they can't think for themselves, we have to operate them. So if god created us, who created god? If the point you are making is that something can't come from nothing. This is a question that has to be answered. Where did god come from?

"How are man and women precisely made for one another?"

I take it you've never heard of divorce? What about gay peoples? Men and women are not precisely made for one another. Evolution can answer your question as to why male and female organisms are made to reproduce, and why the parts fit. I suggest you study the evolution of sexuality and reproduction before you debate about that.

"Why are there different seasons?"

Is this a serious question? Did you know that the earth orbits the sun and has the influence to cause seasons? Even the moon plays a part in the seasons. Saying we have seasons does not give proof of gods existence because we can explain it without saying "god did it." Don't you realize that by saying "god did it" you are killing history? You kill the very fabric of understanding something, the very fabric of knowledge. Because instead of studying the happenings of this universe we could boil it all down to "god did it." That would be sad.

"Why do people get aids from sexually sinning?"

Aside from your grammar being faulty, this statement is full of holes. I suggest you study the history of the aids virus to discover its origins. The aids virus is present all over the world but especially in poorer countries such as Africa. This is a result of poor health care not sins.

"Why do evolutionists use the time line B.C and A.D.?"

First off you are assuming that all evolutionists do this. One thing I want to make very clear is that not all atheist and evolutionist are created equal; they all have different views and opinions. While I might be an atheist and evolutionist I do believe that religion has a place in this world. I also believe that religion is an important part of human history itself. Using the "Before Christ" and "After Death" in dates of history is tradition more than anything, and it's something hard to get away from. It's been used since time immemorial, and will probably continue to be used for a long time to come.

"People created dinosaurs to i suppose."

I won't respond to that ridiculous comment.

P.S. Work on your grammar, so people will take you more seriously in a debate.

Comment

Thank you for your response first of all. Let's go over what your argument is.

"Are bodies they just happen to function PERFECTLY with precise detail like a car?"

"And guess what there was a creator for a car."

"How are man and women precisely made for one another?"

"Why are there different seasons?"

"Why do people get aids from sexually sinning?"

"Why do evolutionists use the time line B.C and A.D.?"

"People created dinosaurs to i suppose."

I won't respond to that ridiculous comment.

P.S. Work on your grammar, so people will take you more seriously in a debate.

Comment

Your absolutely crazy man read a bible

the-king

19 Nov 2008 03:19

2 Comments

Is that all you got. That certainly doesn't add much to your argument. And I'm not a man.

Andromeda

19 Nov 2008 14:32

Comment

The Bible says God created it all and that the Bible is Gods word.

You can discount it all you want but it is a valid argument to your pointless and rigged debate.

I will respond for you...

The Bible was written by humans who could have created God because they didn't want to feel small and alone.

It's not really difficult. If the debater didn't respond to your legitimate response, I'm sure I would have.

I'll do that also...
Yes, they could have. But why would they have written the Bible? If they wrote it to make themselves feel large and (interesting how there isn't an anonym for alone) not feeling alone, why would they write a book that raises so many questions? Why would they write a book where the heroes always fail?

Adam and Eve. Moses didn't get to enter the Promised Land. Noah gets out of the boat and has the drunken, nudity experience. David and Bathsheba. The list goes on and on.

In the case of the Bible, the evidence does not suggest it was written to create a god so that someone could feel large and not alone.

Anyway, hope this example helps with your future debates.

The reason God didn't put "evidence of his existence" is to emphasize faith. If he left all this proof lying around, nobody would have faith, which is something you kind of want to have. If you think about it, the fact that any of this is happening is because of luck; a couple inches closer to the sun, and we would burn up; a couple inches farther away and we would freeze; life just randomly pops up from bacteria. That just shows you that someone had to make this happen among all this lifeless universe.

And even if we did create God, is it so wrong? I think God creates more of a purpose in life. I would much rather believe that the purpose of my life is to get into heaven than to know that I'm just going to live for a couple of decades and then die and nothing great will happen to me. How sad would it be to have absolutely nothing more than the sixty years you have now, that probably won't amount to anything anyway?

To sum it up, God is awesome, whether he's alive or not. It's a gamble of sorts, but I'm going to risk it.

bookworm3

18 Nov 2008 00:12

3 Comments

Whatever floats your boat.

Actually, the "evidence" they all speak of is death. They have no need to be concerned with those who have died in the past. They don't believe in people with reason. They don't need reason.

It's actually great. Since they don't need reason, they get to scoot about, reasoning with no pressure. They can't lose, they have nothing to lose. They can't be right or wrong while they flit here and there pointing out that having a reason is wrong. They can't know anything other than death, so they insist nobody can know anything other than theories. Oh pardon me...the facts that make up theories. Oh pardon me...no such thing as facts until all possible data is acquired. Sweeet!

I guess the verdict is out on EVERY STINKING BIT OF EVIDENCE THEY CAN POSIBBLY PRESENT TO PROVE A BOOGER IS UP THEIR NOSE.

Sorry to mess up your polite comment. lol

justsumguy

18 Nov 2008 00:34

Comment

Skipping over Justsumguy's comment for the moment, sorry dude, I like to juggle one at a time.

Most of your comment is reasonable bookworm, and you didn't put out any creationist dribble that I hear all the time. I will comment on a few things though. Just because we are in a good area of the solar system to maintain life doesn't mean that there is a god that put us there. Even if it’s something that rarely happens in solar systems in our galaxy alone, it only has to happen once. No where in the study of abiogenesis have I read that life pops up randomly from bacteria, it's not that simple. What makes you think this universe is lifeless? If a person wants to believe in god that’s their prerogative, I not going to tell someone what to believe. I just educate people on matters of science, and it seems that there is a fine line between god and science. That was the only thought in my mind when I was on the road to becoming an atheist. It was the one thing that was keeping me from becoming an atheist. It was this wonderful place called heaven. I like the idea of dieing and then living on. I do, believe me. Who wants to die and then that’s it. However, I like living in reality. We want heaven, we want an after life, and even the Egyptians wanted it. However, I take things as they are, not the way I want them to be.

Comment

I call bullpoo. Nothing in your science has anything to do with whether there is or is not a god. You are fighting a political war.

There is no line between science and a perfect god. One does not have to believe or disbelieve in gods to pursue science. One only has to get caught up in the petty debates with those from both sides which push the lie.

As far as your personal inspirations or lack thereof, you are who you are. You take things as they are while denying and trying to claim that a perfect God ISN'T. You are defining your existence by the death that is real to you while denying the evidence of what you want.

And don't say it's not evidence. You are not defined by science. You are not defined by evolution. You are defined by you. To say you aren't is to say you don't know who you are. It is to deny the who in exchange for the what.

It would be ok if you would stop trying to use your what to deny other peoples who. It is insane.

Be a scientist. Be whatever you want. If you have a problem with those who are attacking evolution, answer them with evolution (which you can obviously do to a certain extent).

You have no grounds and look foolish when you try to attack the belief in the who. It is counterproductive to what you are trying to accomplish.

"there is no proof that a god or any gods exists"
What kind of proof would satisfy you?

v00v

01 Nov 2008 02:07

18 Comments

The reason you can’t find God is the same reason the shoplifter can’t find the police

v00v

01 Nov 2008 02:14

Comment

Why do you think what I believe is impossible? You probably won't answer this question; because you never answer questions. First of all go and learn about how science works, then come back and discuss it. Science deals with what is not what could be, we have abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang, and we know how these processes work. We don't know everything there is to know about these processes but were still learning. Did these processes take place because of supernatural happenings? No, on the basis of science, no supernatural powers from any god have had a hand in the creation of anything. Why, because there is zero evidence to suggest that they did. Just because the sun rises every morning, doesn't mean you have to associate it with supernatural powers, we know how and why that happens. Not to mention science doesn't deal with the supernatural. If a scientist wants to study the supernatural independently that’s their business. Some scientists have worked on Bigfoot, loch-ness, UFO's, and ghost. Mainstream science doesn't deal with supernatural beings or religion. I've heard of a lot of scientist but H.S. Lipson is a new one for me, he sounds like a person who is afraid to pick creation or evolution. He's not a biologist and he's speaking about biology. I'll have to do more research about him; I can't find him on Wikipedia, so he must not be a very popular scientist at all. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for physicist they deal with hard questions that today our technology and minds can barely comprehend. We are still a primitive species, that’s something that is not often taken into account.

Comment

Andromeda, the things you describe about science and it's effects on you have nothing to do with beliefs. If your criteria to believe is based on science then belief has nothing to do with you. You're talking about knowing.

Your statement saying science does not deal with what could be is terribly wrong. I don't really think that's what you want to say.

Your point on why would you want to find something you don't even believe in is well taken. You might out of curiosity but with this subject, it isn't likely you would find it.

It's of great interest to me. It is literally impossible for me to imagine you not feeling your link to eternity. The love of your creator. You say you don't. You're not the only one. I believe you. I believe if you did feel that link, you would be excited to find what you don't believe in.

I will always respond (as long as I'm on this site) to your entries regarding your wrestling match with believers whose claims infringe on your intelligence. I agree and disagree with both. There are good and bad things being said by both (the bad is usually the things said in error describing the other side as opposed to the arguments in support of one side or the other).

Comment

What I meant was science does not deal with the way humans want things to be. That's what religion does; gods and after lives. That's the way we want it to be, but its not the way it is. Unlike theist, I live in real world reality; I look at what is actually there not what I want to be there. Religion paints a pretty picture, I will say that, but it's just a picture. I made the transition to atheist over five years ago, it wasn't easy. The only thing keeping me from making that transition was this wonderful thing called after life and heaven. I wanted to believe in it, believe me I did.

I have a close family, all of which are country church going religious people; they hardly even know what science is. Sometimes I have the feeling that I'm adopted. Because I'm an atheist I've been alienated by some of them, which caused me to be resentful. That caused me to believe that religion separates people who are different. Kind of like when a person comes out of the closet and announces their sexual orientation to a conservative family. It takes a strong minded person to go against what they are not only taught but what they are surrounded by. It's so easy to just join the crowd, stay on the straight and narrow with everyone else. I don't jump on the band wagon, I won't jump when you jump, and I don't take the bait. I carve my own path.

Now look at this!!!! Great I have typers cramp, thanks a bunch justsumguy. You made me tell my life's story. I need a Tylenol now.

See just when I'm getting to serious I make a funny.

Comment

Andromeda, family pressures are always tough. What you describe about yourself and your decisions is the same things many describe who make the opposite move from not believing to believing. The pressures are much the same.

In regards to your description of the enticement of Heaven and the afterlife, there are many of us believers who would view such an enticement as greatly missing the mark. We would say that which entices us is the love that God shares with us. Granted, it could be argued we are stirred by something handed down through generations which a past human created in order to feel less small and less alone and that we don’t want to let it go for the same reasons.

It could be said since I have lived most of my life feeling less small and not alone that I am not moved by the reality you describe and that I certainly am aware of.

I am far removed from being effected by the thoughts of being small and alone. You might say I have evolved far from the fears which created the answer to someone else’s fears.
,

To be honest, I think it would be harder to explain how Earth is the perfect breeding ground for life than an all-powerful being. Does everyone realize that if the oxygen levels in the atmosphere went up by 7% that the atmosphere would be too rich and would catch on fire? If the oxygen levels went down by 7% then Earth would not be able to sustain life as we know it? To say that the planet evolved like this by chance sounds a little harder to prove to me.

Getting back to the base of the question though, I believe that humans created religion, not God. I think people confuse the two quite often. I believe God exists, but I do not belong to any sort of denomination of religion; my connection with God is more of a spiritual one than anything. I think humans created religion as the cohesion of a community with the sole purpose of bringing people together.

Damien

14 Oct 2008 17:59

6 Comments

Its not a perfect breeding ground for life, it's a good breeding ground, but it's not perfect. Climates change dramatically; meteor impacts destroy hundreds if not millions of species, humans evolve, lots of bad things go wrong on this planet that challenges the survival of its inhabitants. I hate to burst your perfect world of a bubble but this earth is not like a Walgreen's commercial. Just because it’s a good breeding ground for life doesn't mean you have to deduce it down to being possible because of a god. The myth of creation and the existence of gods were simply fables and stories that ancient people told so they could explain why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, it has survived into an age of science and reason.

Andromeda

16 Oct 2008 04:12

Comment

Aah Andromeda, we seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of this conversation every time, don't we? :)

When I said perfect, it was merely a comparison with every other planet out there that we know of. True, we only know a vastly small amount of planets and how they would not support life, but do you not think that the Earth is a beautiful thing? How it can sustain our lives almost effortlessly? It is just an argument of semantics, but I believe the Earth is perfect because it allows all types of life to thrive.

You're also assuming that I think the Earth was created by God when the first portion of my statement that I made merely suggests that I have an easier time believing Occan's razor to be applied to God rather than how the Earth was created. This is possibly because the Earth has a far more detailed history that spans billions of years while God is seemingly timeless and has no history to examine. I never once said that God created the Earth either as I genuinely thing that the Earth existed and God simply found it. I'm not entirely sold on this belief but it makes more sense to me than God creating the Earth.

I can also admit that some people creating God or gods/goddesses simply to explain what they could not. I'll also tell you that I think the Bible was created simply as a moral compass full of fables and not literal stories. I will also tell you that I do find it funny that religion has survived into an age of science and reason but I think this is because sometimes you don't want everything explained in a reasonable or scientific view; sometimes its just better when its a mystery. I'm not saying that's how I feel, I'm just throwing that out there.

Thanks for your post Andromeda...I seem to learn more about how I truly feel when you and people like you challenge me :)

Comment

Depends which way you look at it, on one hand, we decided to call what created the universe"God", on the other, God was what created the universe.

Andromeda:
"God" is the word we decided to call what created the big bang. It doesn't matter which religion. It doesn't even have to be a being. The thing or incident that made the universe is what we call "God".

Hermione82

08 Oct 2008 22:25

7 Comments

Do you have proof that this god created the universe? Which god are you referring too? What created god?

Andromeda

14 Oct 2008 17:20

Comment

It seems simpler to me that someone created all we see rather than it exploded out of the nothingness, and did so in a way that we now have life here on this third rock from the sun.

No God seems much more difficult to me.

That being said...the simplest answer is not always the correct one.

created

07 Sep 2008 04:20

3 Comments

How simple is it to believe that everything we know and see was created by some mysterious being. It's not simple to believe that, it is hard to believe that. "It exploded out of the nothingness," I'm assuming your talking about the Big Bang Theory. That was not an explosion it was an expansion, like a muffin in the oven. "The simplest answer is not always the correct one." You are partially right about this. Occam's Razor does not work in every instance, but it does work here.

Andromeda

07 Sep 2008 17:01

Comment

Yup... Sorry to say this...but... You're wrong...and that whole "razor thingy" is a load of c'r'a'p.

MichaelT

11 May 2008 05:24

4 Comments

Instead of just outright accusing me of being wrong, could you elaborate on why you think I'm wrong. Why do you think the "Razor thingy," as you put it.

Andromeda

11 May 2008 13:55

Comment

If you are going to use Occam's Razor (the simplest possible explanation is the most likely) then the simplest explanation is that an outside force created the universe, organized it, and than created life, evolved it, and here we are now. If "man made god" to feel bigger, wouldn't that just make us feel smaller?

Mark

10 May 2008 16:38

11 Comments

Look at the universe. We are a tiny little grain of sand on a giant beach called the universe. Why not make up gods to make ourselves feel more significant and more important. That's not a simple explanation, because so far there is no proof that a god or any gods exists or that any of them created anything.

Andromeda

10 May 2008 16:50

Comment

Aren't we getting a little tired of these debates over and over? I understand your perspective; i understand your contempt for those who are religious. I get it. Wouldn't it be easier for you to resurrect (no pun intended) one of the many old debates that run identical to this one?

Or better yet, rephrase it in a more intellectually challenging manner? Maybe something like the existence of nonphysical realities?

innomen

10 May 2008 16:04

4 Comments

I have absolutely no contempt for those who are religious.

Andromeda

10 May 2008 16:19

Comment

Firstly, there is scientific evidence that god exists, no one has proven that there is a god or many gods but if miracles are said to be the work of something more powerful than human beings, this indicates that the is someone or something higher than ourselves and that there is definitely a god or gods, and also this is a matter of belief. If someone does not have religion, that person has science to lean on for answers, so either way god or religion in a matter of one's beliefs. But to those who believe in the extraordinary, god definitely exists as if he did not exist, then, miracles during surgery or any other miracle would not happen and who will do the job of creating the earth, the heaven and hell, man and all its creatures and the galaxies. It cannot be man as dinosaurs roamed the earth before man and man has not even been able to travel to other galaxies, so therefore there is definitely a god.

aisyahkc

10 May 2008 15:58

1 Comment

Because the scientific community is dependent on the scientific method when arriving at conclusions about nature and the universe, there is a lack of consensus as to the appropriate scientific treatment of religious questions, such as those of the existence, nature and properties of God — mainly because of the lack of a common definition of God and, even if there were an agreed-on definition that could be taken as a scientific hypothesis, there is a inability to objectively verify this definition using the scientific method. Invariably, lack of objective empiric verifiability of the existence of God has led to scientific skepticism which forms the basis of atheistic philosophy.

Andromeda

10 May 2008 16:45

Comment

Your point contradicts itself. Why would we make up god if we wanted to feel bigger? If were trying to make ourselves feel less small, don't you think we would refrain from talking about a god? Humans didn't create this idea

stricken36

10 May 2008 15:45

11 Comments

Why would we make up god if we wanted to feel bigger? Look at the universe. We are a tiny little grain of sand on a giant beach called the universe. Why not make up gods to make ourselves feel more significant more important. No one wants to believe or feel that they are alone, believing in god is a way of making ourselves feel like were not alone, like we have a higher purpose in life. If humans didn't make up the gods, then who or what did?

Andromeda

10 May 2008 16:39

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

2 hours ago

The pendulum swings both ways. That is healthy and brings matters back into balance. read more...

4 hours ago

Why is it OK to rewrite history with a liberal slant but not with a conservative one? read more...

4 hours ago

HAHA!!! Awesome point. But if you have something drilled into your head every sunday you're entire life, you're likely to... read more...

5 hours ago

Please stop this now. This humanist thing is just atheists trying to set their own Dogma. The best thing about being an atheist... read more...

5 hours ago

I'm an "extreme leftist " and I know for a fact we're not. I've been in a room full of liberals and we all agree democracy... read more...

Related Debates

	Kids/people Shouldn't Be Able To Smoke
	The Cheeto Jesus Found In Texas Is Not A Sign From God
	If You Take, You Should Give.
	Jesus Is Real
	Good People Who Do Not Believe In God Will Go To Hell
	Some People On This Site Are REALLY WEIRD!!!
	Lol Cats Are Funny :)
	It's OK To Play A Game Hard And Tough As Long As You Can Be Civil After It's Over
	People Who Say That Religion Is The Cause Of All The Major Wars In History Are Deluding Themselves
	Men Should Be Allowed To Wear Fem Panties

New Debates

	We Can't Allow Texas To Rewrite History.
	The Most Famous Religious Texts In Human History Were Not Written Directly By God
	If A New Messiah Appeared Today With A Message And Claimed To Replace Jesus & Mohammad & All Others And...
	The Devil Is Not A Red Beast With Horns Walking With Impunity Through Flames In Hell And Surrounded By...
	God Is Not An Old White Man With A Beard Sitting On A Throne In A Solid Gold Kingdom Up In The Clouds...
	Every Once In A While Everyone Should Have A Singsong With Youtube Kareoke And Go Crazy! :D
	Should The Drink Drive Limit Be Zero!?
	Perhaps It Is Wise For The US And UK To Distance Themselves From Israel
	Child Protective Services In Germany Is Abusing Families, Children And Their Government-given Authority...
	If America Turns On Israel We Will Lose God's Protection. Obama And Biden's Stance On Building In Jerusalem...