[lamchopz]

I actually stop doing my tute questions and break my sleeping pattern for this thread. Omg. xD

Since I've already stated my opinon, I won't labour much on it.

Here are what I saw:

Jikanu:
Lots of your arguments are the usual responses that the religious people I talked to gave. Mostly it's circular reasoning. The key here is that you should stay away from the language of the church, and start posting using your own thoughts. The people here who are on the other side of the argument have proposed their arguments rather objectively, which gains force in a debate.

And to respond to the claim that science and creationism can co-exist: no, they can't. History has shown it more clearly than one can put it in words. The effect of letting creationism gain grounds in schools is horrendous: don't forget most people are lazy thinkers and the average people would rather something as simple as creationism to explain everything than some evolution which has you stay up many nights to study. The fact that the Catholic church managed to rule for over a thousand years should have alerted you to that fact. Thanks to the victory of science over the religious ruling, people are now acquainted with the idea of persistent enquiries whereas centuries ago, it was something not remotely conceivable. Argue as much as you like, it's the state of humanity and there's no good reason to cover it.

===========

Manzcar:
I'd rather think this thread was to present a comprehensive debate about the popular beliefs that are the bases of our lives. The powerful and probably extremely beautiful feature here is that you can prove a positive but not a negative. Therefore, asking a person to prove "God doesn't exist" does not really make sense. It's like asking "When didn't you say that?" rather than "When did you say that?" (this is a reference to Joseph Heller's Catch-22, brilliant book which I'm reading at the moment lol). Thus, as the side in favour of the existence of God, you only have to show that God exists. And really, there are really lots of science-based arguments which more or less allude to the existence of God but the inherent problem is that at the core of science, at least in its current state, all theories must not assume a supernatural being, which effectively suffocates the littlest chance of potentiating the validity of creationism. It is by no means a conspiracy. No, really, it isn't. It is a way, a necessity, to ensure strict coordination between scientists to produce works which provide coherent mechanisms for the phenomena of interest. Think back to the old ages, because people were so contented with the fact that God created rain, they just happily worshipped God of Rain. Thanks to the first civilisations, particularly the Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese, enquiries started to surface but the extent was inadequate. For example, the ancient anatomists "imaged" the human body and the field of anatomy did not really evolve until the idea of dissecting became mainstream. The point is enquiries must be made with observable and testable to effect true progress. Thus, this debate can only continue with the exclusion of such scientific criteria.

========

The centre of this conflict comes from the idea that everything has a beginning, therefore the existence of a God was necessary to explain everything around us. But the idea dies as soon as the question of how/where/who this God came from/was is put forward. "You don't question God". It brings this debate into light.

As someone who is open to the idea that perhaps God created science and let us study this science, I really think it's rather inviting and indeed a wonderful thought. Then again, it could also be nothing out there, as you have mentioned. The reason why one chooses to believe in God is to me a way to find relief from the hardships of this life. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not a sign of weakness, either. It is a way of life, among the million ways possible, but at least it keeps you in line with morality. For that, it is respectable.

My point?

The dead end that we've been going into is that one side is speculating what God wants/does and the other side repeatedly rebuts the intentions of God postulated by the other side. Really, you do not truly know what God wants and claiming that you're in touch with God so you understand God's desires is not the least argumentative. Remember the topic: existence of God so I'm really eager to see evidence.

Debate is a healthy way of exchanging opinions. However, if one keeps attacking the other who purely bases their arguments on dogmatic statements, there is little room for progress. Why don't we all come down to the basics, without the luxury of modern philosophical knowledge, for once?

For example, the current debate is centred upon the fact that God is personal. What about the impersonal possibility of a God? The poll has that after all.