Is there a god? <dramatic music>

I'm not going to give any retorts to your's because you'll just retaliate to mine and me yours and etc.

All of this ends up to equalling the same thing;

I can't prove God to you, and you can't Disaprove him to me.
You can't prove the big bang, and I can't disaprove it.

Its a neverending subject and I hope to beable to end it here. Not with one side winning but with both sides agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

I hope you understand.



Everyone has their favorite quotes.

I don't want to drag this on any longer, and I don't think it has to go on any longer unless you make it.



I'm just wondering, why did you make a topic questioning His existence if you already thought He didn't exist?

Whoah now, yes it does. Oxygen allowes for organisms to grow substantially larger in size during evolution. During times when the environment was highly oxygenated, insects (who breathe through their exoskeletons) were sometimes several feet larger. I guess what I'm trying to say that if a species is adapted to thrive in an environment, which can either be rich in oxygen or carbon dioxide, it is more likely to experience radiation and diversification. Also, if you look at evolution of sea life (which greatly contributed toward animals developing predatorial skills), the ocean was abundant (and still is) in oxygen.

Please do not point fingers. There are fundamentalists on both sides of this debate.

Double-think is the word I'm looking for atm.

That, is, in fact, pointing the finger, MQ. Not me, nor Waffles, nor Brad, nor any of the atheists in this debate are fundamentalist. We may be passionate, but we are not fundamentalist.



-



Again, there is a significant difference between God and the big bang. There is plenty of evidence for the Big band and evolution, and none against; whereas there is no evidence for the existence of god, or against it. In fact, I shall describe the biggest chunk of big bang evidence now.

The Doppler effect states that when an object is moving towards you that is giving out waves of some sort, those waves get 'squashed up', so to speak. When an object is moving away, the waves get stretched out. Go outside and listen to a car right now if you dont believe me - when the car is coming towards you, it sounds higher than when it is moving away, does it not?

The same is true of electromagnetic radiation - light, radio waves, etc. When a far-away galaxy is moving away from you, its waves get stretched, and are shifted towards the longer end of the spectrum - the red. We call this Red Shift. If stars and things were moving towards us, they would be shifted towards the other end - Blue Shift. The method we use of telling these waves are red shifted is by observing distinctive lines given off by certain elements - for example Sodium gives a very distinctive bright yellow line, and various other elements do the same kind of thing. These lines, when looking at far-away galaxies, have been shifted to the red end.

Now, the proof of the big bang is in this: everything is redshifted. No Blueshift has been observed to happen, and therefore everything is moving away from us. If everything is moving away from us, and nothing seems to be converging on a single point, we can deduce that everything is also moving away from each other, and therefore the space in between stars is expanding.

If the space is expanding now, then in the past, the space must have been smaller - it is logically impossible for it not to have been. Do the maths, and we find that 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was nothing but a singularity, and has expanded from that singularity for the last 13.7 billion years.

Now, this is what we call evidence. We have observed red shift, and deduced (not induced, deduced - the conclusion was not plucked out of a hat, the conclusion is logically necessary) that the universe expanded from a single point, and therefore the Big Bang happened.

Now, I have presented evidence. I am sure Brad would be more than happy to present some evidence in favour of evolution, but I wont ask him to. You have presented no irrefutable evidence that God exists. While I cannot go back 13.7 billion years and show you the big bang happening, it has evidence, it is logical, and it has been deduced. And best of all, it is not refutable.

I will agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove god either way. But the argument presented above is irrefutable, solid evidence for the Big Bang.

Now, go ahead and argue God's existence with an argument as strong as that.

I don't even know what to say anymore. No matter what argument I bring up for the existence of God, it will get slammed with quotes from self-righteous scientists and philosophers. There is one question I must bring up to atheists though:

Isn't your life kind of empty without believing in God, or a god? What is even the incentive to live your life if not to get to heaven? 'Well, I lived a great life, and now I die unto eternal nothingness... how wonderfully logical...' That is just about the worst thought ever in my opinion. Why would you even bother to live your life? It is all meaningless without belief in God, isn't it?

I refuse to believe that we are so intelligent and thoughtful merely by chance, and that during 'evolution', no other organism managed to match our intelligence level. I believe we were created with a soul and intelligence by God. We have the opportunity to deny him or believe in him. He sent his 'son' and gave us the Bible to help us make that decision. All you need is a little faith in something other than hard 100% evidence.

I am sorry for bumping this topic back up, but I had to get my ideas out there. I don't want a competition to see which side is right (I will never change my stance), and I don't feel like arguing with anyone, so don't bother quoting me and throwing "facts" or quotes at me if you are expecting a response. I would, however, like to hear what you believe happens to you when you die.

An argument I have heard so many times, and one which I always hate to hear.

Atheists do not live for the afterlife, we go not live for god, but that does not mean our life has no meaning. We live simply for life itself. We make the most of every day, cherishing our time here, rather than believing we will go onto eternal life or reincarnation or whatever. Sure, most of us think there is nothing after death, but that is not something to be unhappy about - it forces us to make the most of the time here.

Something that believers do not seem to grasp is that life does not have to have a purpose or meaning other than being its own purpose or meaning. Life is life, it is not necessarily a test or a preceding stage before eternal life or whatever.

Life is simply the status our bodies are at when they are motabilising, doing their reactions and sending signals and things through the brain and nerves. I dont think we have a soul, I dont think we have a spirit or anything. Life is merely a chemical process. Emotions are caused by hormones and glands. Thoughts are connecting electrical paths in the brain. Why does it have to be any more than that?

Also, we might not be the most intelligent species on the planet - that could well be dolphins. We're just the dominant species because have have movable thumbs. Try getting a dolphin to tie a knot or grab hold of something. And many primate thumbs are static and immovable.

In the end, Life is not meaningless without belief in some higher power. Our life is not empty in any way.

The universe is created by the powerful forces of science. Religion exsists to establish laws and morals to live by. But who's to say you don't come back as a dog or somthing, or go into the after life when you die? I can't prove or disprove god. So we won't know until we die or some one actually proves or disproves it.

Wrong. I was channel surfing in the early hours of the morning and I flicked onto religious channel (unintentionally), and a woman in her 30s was talking about how she never used to believe in god, but now has faith because her mother's cancer vanished. Anyway, I was disgusted to say the least.