Nice vsauce reference

Somehow believing in no God is a religion too, since you have no proof he doesn't exist. (Although evolution is an attempt).
Choosing not to believe is a serious thing, as is choosing to. Although the first thing is the most easy and most attractive, and I believe that that is the reason so many don't believe.

Because imagine you stand before God anyway and He says:"You had no proof I did NOT exist, so why were you so strongly against me?"

The argument "no proof that it doesn't exist" can be applied to a ton of things that no one believes in, including of course, a bunch of "rival" deities. It's not wrong, but neither is a theory positing the existence of a deity.

If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

...
The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.

I'm convinced that that did not happen.

"evolution" is not an attempt at anything. scientists do not study things and pose theories in an attempt to anger people or disprove things. science is an approach to information that tries to make as few assumptions as possible. it takes data as input (via careful experimentation) and proposes generalised rules based upon the results. if, later on, a better method of measurement is discovered or some other critical piece of information that was not considered during the previous experiment, a new one is conducted and a revised generalised rule determined. such experiments are, nowadays, performed by people all over the globe, and they are free to contribute to one another and draw from one another, resulting in more accurate results. the idea is that nothing can be known for certain, but some things can be known with a greater degree of certainty than others, and that's the best we can get.

the theory of evolution is one such generalised rule that happens to be much better supported than most. that we can see evidence of our own evolution all around us (people originating from different regions of the globe have specialised features, i.e. long, straight hair for holding in warmth in northern regions vs. short, curly hair that lays flat against the head in order to keep off the sun), can see clear evidence of directed evolution in the form of pets (particularly dogs. they are the most outwardly diverse species of mammal that i can think of, at any rate), and can literally watch the process occurring in small, rapidly-reproducing creatures under a microscope (take a species of bacteria, for example, introduce something which is toxic to them, and you might end up with millions of dead bacteria along with one or two that were able to survive due to some mutation or other which made them immune. allow those few to reproduce and suddenly you have a group of bacteria that is immune to that toxin on a wide scale) is evidence enough that, to disprove the theory of evolution, one would need to somehow prove life-long visual and auditory hallucinations on a species-wide scale. furthermore, those hallucinations would all have to be practically identical.

this theory has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your god exists. it is a generalisation about the way that organisms function.

also, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. when you look down at a table, expecting there to be a pen, and do not see your pen, you do not ignore that and reach for the pen anyways. you take it as an indication that the pen is not there, and start searching elsewhere (in your pockets, on the floor, etc)

Quote from: ElementCoder on May 21, 2013, 02:26:51 pm

I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence.

Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.

Quote from: ElementCoder on May 21, 2013, 02:26:51 pm

Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)

See above in my message.

Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements. Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe. You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.

Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.

The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.

He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
And you're theory isn't really interesting because it's impossible. A think can't create itself, since it has to already exist to do so.

Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.
 Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.

Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.

You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.

What's the problem with "science's explanations" ? Does it prove that it isn't God's work ? We can explain how we live with biologie, and give theories to the beginning of universe, this doesn't prove God didn't do it. Science explains how, religions say why. That's all.

If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.

The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.