Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
If we have no proof, then there is no reason for us to believe that it exists. There is a possibility that it could exist. But with no evidence, we have no obligation to believe it. Just recall the dinosaur analogy. I didn't mean to say it doesn't exist, instead I meant there's no reason for us to believe it.
I said that the more than science answers, the lesser questions there will be for which God or religion would be the deduced answer. The reason I believe this is because scientists are always doing research and trying to find answers to such questions, whereas religion is stagnant and usually are based on scriptures written thousands of years ago. Religious heads do no attempt to gather more answers, but instead fall back on their scriptures for meanings or answers. Science is ever progressing and considers all evidence uncovered by humans. Science, and subsequently technology, is what has driven our civilizations' progress for centuries. And this leads me to believe that science will play a more important role in the future than what it is doing today.
As for disproving religion altogether, I see it as water filling an empty glass. As an when there's more water being poured into the glass, the empty space in the glass becomes lesser and lesser. While the glass may not be completely full at present, based on the continuous flow of water, it's evident that the glass will be completely full in the near future. I may be wrong, and there might still be a small space left. But only time will tell. And this time may be centuries or millenniums.
As for disproving religion altogether, I see it as water filling an empty glass. As an when there's more water being poured into the glass, the empty space in the glass becomes lesser and lesser. While the glass may not be completely full at present, based on the continuous flow of water, it's evident that the glass will be completely full in the near future. I may be wrong, and there might still be a small space left. But only time will tell. And this time may be centuries or millenniums.
They believed in what has been sent to them. Allah sent them to teach all other humans so that people can understand what a messenger has to say and they could be a role model for other people. If Allah would had sent angels to teach all mankind then think about it how angels can be a role model for human.
Sheik, i really cant see what you mean when saying that science has so far disproved religion in many things.....i really dont think that is the case and after watching this videos it is even more evident to me that science has not in fact disproved anything and it will never do that. To be on the fair side, religion will also never disprove science in anything simply because science and religion are simply two unmixable things. Like mixing water with stone. Im afraid that ultimately it all comes down to faith and no one, i mean no one, can ever say with a 100% certainty, with 100% solid proof that God does exist or doesnt. I consider the people who constantly fight over this as people who are not comfortable with where they stand or where they are going and so they constantly find the need to defend themselves instead of simply saying "Ok, yeah, pigs and donkeys do fly". Now, having said this, i do agree with debates like this, where two intelectuals sit next to each other and battle it out (so to speak) with their wits, in a gentlemanly way. It can really be helpful for some people.
And when it comes to this debate, which is also the subject of this thread, i have to say that Mr. Peter Atkins lost this. And everyone with a sane mind has to admit this.
And when it comes to this debate, which is also the subject of this thread, i have to say that Mr. Peter Atkins lost this. And everyone with a sane mind has to admit this.
Again Burke, i want to know those things that science has disproved what was said in the scriptures......i want solid, 100% true facts, not "we have evolved from monkeys" kind of things. Something that may be true, but never-ever has been 100% proven. Im talking about things like the world isnt lying on the backs of three whales but it is round and it just floats, hangs on nothing.
If you have read something I wrote you will see that I don't deny evolution theory, and I meantioned that you shouldn't take those things as in real events took exactly like it was written.
Maybe the story is about that while we have everything we need around us to be completely happy we choose to take the apple (doubt, search for not essential things) and now we are in this age where the most important thing is money, where having good morals is become less and less important, where envy is the driving force behind our economy, where people do everything to be on top of another. But whatever, maybe there was a litteral apple they found and where throuwn put of some sort of garden...
Maybe the story is about that while we have everything we need around us to be completely happy we choose to take the apple (doubt, search for not essential things) and now we are in this age where the most important thing is money, where having good morals is become less and less important, where envy is the driving force behind our economy, where people do everything to be on top of another. But whatever, maybe there was a litteral apple they found and where throuwn put of some sort of garden...
Well Burke, it is also obvious to me that all this, life, universe and everything in it came to be simply by chance, "out of nothing" as they say.....And no, it is not because of teh scientific community that i dont believe in evolution......It is simply that out of the two highly improbable, not yet proven theories i choose one.....Of course, i didnt just go "eenie mini mine mo", there were other variables included but the scientist were not one of them.