Religion Vs Science

OK! here goes - There are so many opinions about religion Vs Science..?
My question is - everyone is so sure (in religion) that the earth and everything was created by GOD 6000yrs ago! But who was there to record this event? Surely the author of the Book of Genesis and you, would want proof and not just hear-say that this so called self proclaimed GOD of everything actually did this. And please don't quote scripture "that is plagiarism!" In my opinion no one WAS there, so no evidence except a STORY! but there is plenty of evidence to support evolution!! And common sense dictates too!! Plagiarism just means to copy! OK!! for you thicko's out there!! I'M BORED now!! All religion is wrong!! Bye!!

Get the answers...

Religion Vs Science?
Ok 3rd religious related question in a row from a non religous guy !! lol.. I strongly believe in the Science point of view of everything because lets face it a lot of the bible is just unbelievable especially without any evidence.. But there is one thing that puzzles me science dictates that the universe was created by the big bang which makes sense..but answer me this what created the big bang and what created what created the big bang....etc... It is a puzzler..could probably drive me slightly mad if I thought about it for too long !! I'm not gonna go to church..they really are all cults IMO and I don't think any of them have it right WHOAH, tons of answers..one i seem to see cropping up a lot is the whole collapsing and expanding thing..but even still that had to start at some point didn't it ? Although I don't believe in any religion..part of me would like there to be some form of spirituality behind the creation of the universe..cause in my books there is no such thing as infinite..time HAD to start at some point !!

Get the answers...

religion vs science, which will win?
in the future will people rely more on religion or science?

Get the answers...

What do you think about the vast, widely spread belief and time invested into religion?
I have a very strong dislike towards all religion, I find it illogical and fundamentally flawed. I fail to see how anyone of significant intelligence could disagree. Religion VS Science, in any argument where the answer is indefinite, anyone with reasonable logic and intelligence levels would default to the answer which bears the most fact and hard evidence. Which is most certainly science, so in answer to the currently unanswerable question, surely science would be the most logical option? With a lack of superior and more abundant resources and information to contribute further to the subject. I'd like to see a diverse range of opinions and possibly discuss the matter because it continually gripes me. I see no real reasoning or logic within the majority of religious teachings and beliefs. In fact, some seem completely ludicrous and absurd. Without going into too much detail or elaborating at this point, I'll wait for some discussion. Out of interest I'm sixteen and relatively inexperienced in life, which has nothing to do with my understanding of logical matters, which is all the world is based on. Evolution exists, for anybody that somehow disbelieves in facts. The text written is mainly in respect to the creation of the Universe, followed by the Earth and development thereon. I have not read through the details I've provided, and they may well neglect to include important facts or opinions I hold, but it's more designed for a foundation of a debate. There may also be a couple of grammatical errors and general lack of planning on the organization side of things, that's due to the spontaneous nature of the posting and sheer speed at which I wrote the information, I apologize for any errors. I, so far am in agreement with 'Ed'. It's a pure waste, based on flawed and insufficient evidence from people we have very little information or knowledge of. That against the general ability to prove things scientifically through pure logic and understanding. How could the bunch of people from millenniums ago be the most likely, in a logical mind. And in reply to the bit about mixing spirituality, there is no need for spirituality to exist in the slightest. Logic and chance are the basis of our Universe, nothing else, mark my words. One day this will be proven and I would seem somewhat overly intelligent in comparison to the average person. There are parts that still remain unexplained or possibly even not entirely correctly explained through science, that in no way would mean that you'd default to just about the most insane answer ever, something much better than us that we've never heard of or indeed, seen did it. It's pure word of other humans, which is consistently unreliable. I now, believe there is no life after death, no ghosts, no spirits etc. If you have a computer and it's destroyed, that's it. Just because we're more complicated would not suggest any reason towards the fact that our end isn't our end, when the building blocks of our life cease to work, we do. Forever. This is most clearly my opinion, but I see no concrete evidence towards any real life after death contact nor have I experienced anything related, so again, I default to the most likely answer, that it doesn't exist. People make a lot up, and when something's unidentified, they try to change that, and generally are not fully successful and can't portray the actual experience that occurred, or for some reason it seems more amazing to them than it actually is and is over exaggerated. A lot of this writing is very spontaneous as I've said, and is requiring little thought from my mind, just saying what's there right now, without going into too much detail or staying on a specific topic. Towards 'exotherm1': I don't fully understand the meaning behind what you say, but I'd say if I'm on the right wavelength, that, 'Jesus', did not choose the audience, the audience chose him. I.e. the more educated people and more intelligent among them, realized the idiocy behind the words he spoke. In my opinion, it's more likely Jesus was the first real person to take extreme effect in a long line of, well let's say, lunatics. To be that would be a lot more likely, as there are perpetually people nowadays who claim similar things, he was a pioneer you might say. But we have all seen examples of cults, an early form? 10 people isn't many, and they could say a lot of things that had been cultured to inspire them, which may well have been a distortion of the actual truth. I'm trying to remain open-minded, but yet I have to see someone who provides more evidence and reliable facts than that of science. I find lots of things that my friends tell me to be highly distorted, or wrong.. so.. I believe it's highly likely that it would be more so the case with people I have had no contact with, nor have any recently lived people, to be claiming such a far-fetched and speculative answer to the creation of the universe to be the one and only. All from a time where they thought things such as the world was flat, I find there to be too many ifs and buts surrounding religion as the answer to the creation of all live and matter, in opposition to scientific responses. Some concrete evidence is much more reliable than little to none, correct? I doubt I'm fully portraying my holistic ideas on the subject, but I'm giving a reasonable idea, it's hard when not in a general conversation, and ideas or thoughts do not always translate well when requested. I feel I've made a decent attempt thus far to explain my beliefs, thank you for the compliments on my use of the English language, amusing how I'm on for a C in English, shows how corrupt schooling can be and how unfair it is. Also how hard it is to understand the abilities of all their pupils, I guess my circumstances made me unfortunate. I deserved more from school. But to return to the matter, I may well neglect to include information or much more profound thoughts that I have. These are more likely to come out when the topic is provoked. I appreiciate your words, although my closed mind is so for a good reason. I have no interest in investing further time into contemplating the integrity of religion as to me science completely dismisses the reliability of the half-baked, relatively ancient and put forward by religion, and supported by believers. Science to my logical mind, is the most reliable answer, so there's no need to open my mind until any substancial amounts of information would attempt to prove otherwise. This, "relatively ancient and put forward by religion, and supported by believers.", should have read: "relatively ancient facts and evidence put forward by religion, and supported by believers.", Mark my words, although I'm of a relatively young age, religion will eventually be rendered obsolete - when science manages to provide enough evidence towards the contrary for religion itself be plausible. Religion at the moment has only one upper-hand on science, the ability to say we either need not prove things for them to be true or that all things have not been proven by science, although none of the things science fails to prove have been proved by religion, possibly speculated (scientists also have an equivalent, theories - apparently they wouldn't count, although speculation of God or Jesus would). The battle against the disproof of religion's integrity is a time-bomb, not a possibility. Religion is most certainly flawed, as most educated and cultured religious people would have thought (deep down). Now my point is not I hate any sort of belief, just I hate the fact that religious people could claim they hold the one and only answer, which bears less fact (illogical I know). It should have read: 'The successful end of the battle..', I lacked space. There are also a couple of other mistakes, I've already stated why, if I took more care to revise my words I would understand my mistakes, which is the key point. I wish I could fully translate successfully the profoundness of my thinking... I have so much more in my mind which just completely blows religion out of the way, I'm just so angry I can't prove it yet. There are so many flaws in religion I can't believe it's lasted, I honestly can't. As someone else said, it is so many people who need some sort of belief for whatever reason or are brought up with such an idea that it is eventually a part of their life, a ritual, and real (to them). That said, I think even if religion was almost completely disproved and science provided most of the answers (that religion half-heartedly, lacking in depth and integrity tries to answer) that religion would continue. It seems as though for some odd reason a certain type/types of person/people need to have a strong or mild belief in something, commonly some sort of religion. Whether people like it or not, the likelihood is that religion will probably always be supported, even when its integrity is finally PROVEN to be unreliable and flawed. I think the fact is with religion, that deep down, the proof of the answers is unimportant because they'd rather go oblivious and just plod along happily with 'God's' explanations, and keep their nice friendly beliefs which to them provides strength (so to them it's irrelevant, they're happy so why bring sense or logic into the equation, just be wrong and support your character artificially with a lie, for the lack of personal ability to do so). The truth of the matter is, nothing supported in religion can be reliably proved in respect with the creation of anything, so that's why the proof is irrelevant, because it doesn't gain anything for religion (convenience, right?). I'm sure if I had a wild explanation to such a complex creation, I'd love to trick everyone into thinking I don't need any proof and it's just the case. The fact is, if religion had a strong case, so many intelligent people wouldn't have questioned its reliability - time, and time again. A lot of this, again, is very spontaneous and I have devoted no previous thoughts to the matter, I am just trying to express what I see in my mind, probably quite inefficiently. Hopefully you people see my point of view and the reasoning behind my thoughts. It's great if you agree with my thoughts, because my actual thoughts are more in-depth, and to agree requires much less reasoning than to come up with the ideas or thoughts, which to me is significant. Anyway, it's late, and I've been debating with myself here, more like documenting my thoughts. Please continue with the answers and discussion. And thank you for any compliments on my self-portrayal. Toward 'Da Mick': Science does not claim evolution hadn't a begin, nor the universe. They obviously agree there was, the fact is, they came about by chance. That is different. Toward 'lykastar': The proof of God's existence is not around us. You seem to have changed your argument severely, as per usual in this type of debate. What is around us, is the Universe and immediately, the Earth. That in no way proves God's existence, therefore your argument is invalid. Merely because one Genius believed in the existence of God, at a time when less had been proven, is nor proof toward the existence of God. The fact is, science and logic and chance are still the most likely answer toward the creation of the Universe, nothing else. I am not merely 'shoving my opinion down your throats'; I'm voicing my opinion, which I'm entitled to, and then I'm stating valid points toward your contradictions, that is debating. You were in the wrong to insult me, which you admitted. Stick to your opinions and beliefs, but they're still flawed and unlikely. In my eyes. If you didn't mean to insult me and did, then you claim that wasn't your aim. Then surely you're sorry? You didn't have to say it, it's assumed. And it was intentional, big lie. 'As to your being only 16, if you really are (which I sincerely doubt), then I predict you will be a philosophy major.' I am greatly complimented by your words, as the truth is I really am of only 16 years of age. 'I wonder why you posted all this? You're not really seeking an answer from Christians (not 'religionists' .. and there is a huge difference). You say you want "evidence" of Christianity and God, obviously knowing there is none that will satisfy you.' I'd like to iterate - I directly and intentionally referred to religion, and not just Christianity. In particular, and specifically I directed this towards the possibility of the existence of a God. Now that doesn't mean I was ruling it out, I just logically think that it's the less likely option based on the reliability of the sources of each and every religion, (all the source(s) are claimed as fact by a man or men). To me that's certainly unreliable. To continue, I acknowledge, and agree that I expect there to be no reasonable proof toward the likelihood of a God. That is why I'm saying that it seems absurd to support religion, now, if anything was brought forward that could possibly do so - I'd be interested. Unfortunately, seeing as I've not been cultivated to be religious, nor do I have the ability to think 'spiritually' over logically - I currently hold no religious beliefs. The thing is, this was my point, religion does not make more sense than science, and as I stated, if it is an indefinite answer to an important question, the most likely and logical reason seem to be the answer taken on board until further information arises. I was wondering whether, seeing as I'm young, and un-experienced, there was more information on the matter which could possibly sway my thoughts. Just because you don't expect something, doesn't mean it isn't coming. Either way I'm happy, I'll go for the likeliest option. Thank-you and goodbye.

Get the answers...

Debate on religion VS science. Are you interested?
If you are please continue what's held herein: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818163841AAeidKW&r=w I see this as an efficient way to try to bring new people into the debate-like question I developed. Please if you're interested, take a look. OK, here's for all the imbeciles that are starting to anger me greatly. Although science and religion are unrelated in the sense that they do not have similarities, and are based on different concepts (logic, understanding, evidence and the latter belief in old texts). Religion says it has the answer to the creation of the universe (albeit stupidly simple and absurd). Science also claims it can explain logically without bringing any sort of religion or belief into the matter, just evidence and real proof. Now if you're too inane to be able to see how religion and science are constantly in a battle, you need to think about it much more profoundly. Religion contradicts what scientists would believe would work, but then when it's finally and definitely proven, they claim science was developed by God anyway, or other absurdities. Archimedes proved that Jupiter had moons itself, therefore Earth wasn't the center, they later said (after want of killing him) that they were Earth's... Moons, and they were in an abnormal and strange orbit. Now obviously, religious people now acknowledge that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe, now, to me, that proves that religion is flawed and has proved to be. To me it is very likely that it is flawed to a much greater extent. I'd like to comment on the people who say it's a closed debate, because of my views. I have stated my views, and the reason why my mind works this way. That in NO way means I am unwilling to take new facts on, or evidence that would make sense towards the integrity of religion - but of course, there probably isn't. I stated on the question, when substancial amounts of information to indicate to the contrary of what I believe, shall I open my mind to it. Until then, my opinion remains the same, that is NOT closed-mindedness. It simply makes sense. Now, I've never heard of a religious person being on the winning end of an argument, they provide less facts, always. The bible is the one document... Enforcing a particular religion's foundation of belief, which is based on what people say they witnessed. That to me is unbelievably unreliable and it is literally ludicrous to base the foundation of millions of lives on similar scenarios. There are 100s of religions to say the least, some with very different beliefs, therefore only one (or a few of similar) could bear much or any truth. Which again shows that religion has an even weaker case. You people don't want to debate, because it scares you. You never have sufficient information towards the beliefs stated by the bible. Or maybe the world is actually 10,000 years old, maybe evolution can't actually be witnessed and it's all a trick? When this is arised, the general consensus is to claim fact and proof are irrelevant. Convenient, right? Now in the case of Archimedes, the religious people (Catholics, in this case) were trying to provide an answer to the moons, weren't they? So how could you have it both ways, answers or not? I am aggravated that so many people could devote there lives to speculation and idiocy. How can you say evolution isn't proved? You can witness bacteria going through generations in hours, and treat them with drugs, and watch their offspring become immune, what does that prove? That God decided to alter them because we were being mean? Anyone who is religious and says that I am closed-minded offends me dearly, as religious people are the most closed-minded of all. It seems as though you are often hypocrites, because all you're ever willing to do is contradict anything that proves contrary to religious beliefs, now I wouldn't do that if religion made valid and recent points based on tests or examination. So surely I'm less closed-minded that the majority of you religious people? Before you label people, think of your own character. I cannot wait until religion is finally disproved, or proven to be extremely flawed. Why? To see all you (probably intelligent) weak-minded people still... Support religion, and become even more closed-minded, not accepting the facts, YET AGAIN. Hypocrisy is useful for religion. I've had enough of dealing with people who're unable to accept new facts and show pedantic characteristics whenever a fact or theory is brought forward by anything other than religion did. God does not exist, it would not make sense. It would be like putting a car on Earth in the time of cavemen, and him explaining the creation of the car as; "something up there that is much more intelligent and superior that I'll never understand just worship did it, because he is so great and I could never actually come up with a good or semi-valid explanation as to what caused its creation". Most intelligent religious people deep-down will question religion's integrity, but then probably deny that it is a weak argument, the others refuse to acknowledge information or disregard it. A childish way to try and keep their silly little minds believing their nice beliefs. If you're scared of learning new facts or researching into them yourself, or even taking on new points. Then the likelihood is you're worried they'll prove your worst fear. I am sixteen years of age, and I have a more open-mind than all of the religious people I've conversed with. I am also more reasonable and much more logical. Mark my words, religion is invalid and is a guard for the weak-minded or brain-washed. It's a safety-net, if you do something wrong, God'll sort it, don't you worry. When something bad happens, God wanted that, so it's OK. When you're going through a tough time, God will sort it. The truth is, this is never the case, its the person their self that does this, or people surrounding. Note how if to a Father Wolverhampton was the great FC, his child/children would also support this, 9/10 times. Religion can be, and is commonly, introduced to families in the same way. People are forced to learn it, and what you learn is true, always, from the dearest people right? At: 'lyka..' Again, you begin to insult me, you say I have my whole life ahead of me to learn to debate, you are two years older than me, that's condescending and truthfully wrong. You have marginally more experience in life, and I put it to you that you yet have the rest of your life to learn to debate. My logic and reasoning are not the equivalent to that of a 6 year old, clearly. I bear more reasoning and logic in what I say than any religion, and you. I do refer to 'religion' and not 'Christianity' intentionally, although your religion may be less flawed, it still is. If you're so amazing yourself, and superior to me, tell me: how would it make more sense that before what we define as everything (the Universe) was created, something else existed? Of superiority to us, that would mean that the whole life and development thing had gone backwards, and that it had previously become extremely developed with a God, so what could've made the God? This is where it gets crazily complex... And usually when an answer is indefinite at the current time, the most likely would be the simplest and most logical. The most logical would certainly not be that before the Universe's beginning there was another, and another etc. There has to have been an initial beginning to everything, and seeing as there's no concrete evidence or even reasonable speculation to suspect that something had begun before the Universe, my logical mind points me to the idea that we were most probably the beginning of all, nothing before. Surely with your reasoning you could contemplate that idea, I am not arrogant, I am merely confident in my thoughts, and words. The fact of the matter is, the question is currently unprovable, so to me the logic says go for the most likely answer, which no matter what you say, would always be no religion at all. It would never make more sense that something made something superior that then created science which then made us. Ever. Now please, refrain from patronizing.. Me, just because I'm of a younger age suggests not that you're smarter or that your points are more valid, it purely makes you seem immature and petty. In terms of logic, which is apparently what you are speaking by, your religion, nor any others would make more sense than that the Universe came about by pure chance and that science will one day explain this. The universe was the beginning of everything, DEFINITIVELY. Therefore you'd be contradicting the meaning of Universe in saying that something or someone existed prior to its creation. The fact of the matter is that religion is a scape-goat and a very common characteristic of most people is to want or need belief in something. Religion is a chain, passed down through families, slowly growing and growing. Just because people share similar beliefs within a religion renders them not to be correct, but the people to be weak-minded and lacking in unique thought patterns, they may consider things about religion, but still have common.. Beliefs and therefore are being lead by others, who were lead by others, who were originally lead by one. It would only take 1 in 1000 people to repeat the words of any 'messiah' to pass it on and make it heard, people are bound to believe it on average. Religions often use the fact that their God made science as a cop-out of the argument, which is really quite a feeble attempt to prevent trying to prove anything, as it can't be done. All religions have a common trait, they started with a person telling other people what they have seen or felt or heard, in their head, or on their own. People like also to believe remarkable stories, I know I do, all it takes is a few to pass the stories they're told on as true, and to exaggerate those stories enough times, for more and more people to jump on the band-wagon, until it diversifies and spreads like a virus. Hence so many religions and so many people investing precious time out of their lives into believing and worshiping what they're told Evolution does, and could explain the existence of you and me. The developments are small, and happen over generations, as you say in mutations. Now think of it like this, although I never have prior to this moment: If one mutation causes a longer neck in giraffes, then in another freak giraffe it has unusual coloured skin which fits in with the environment, both of these giraffes generate offspring, as do their offspring, eventually a giraffe containing the alleles of newly coloured skin, mates with a giraffe with the alleles of a longer neck. This is then a doubly modified version of the original giraffe. Now imagine if 100s of mutations of animal were born yearly and they mated, slowly after generations, a new species with all the mutations would form, and other combinations of them would too, therefore the strongest new one, would mate and mate until the others die out. This is totally plausible, and undeniable, the fact is... the World itself's been round for billions of years... Which could easily account for 1000s of species developing, mutating and mutating, evolving, and then finally developing a few highly complex and intelligent lifeforms. It would be bound to happen. That said, what you said is trying to deny the existence of evolution, which as I said, can be witnessed, so the fact of the matter is whether you say so or not, that evolution did develop us. It couldn't have half-developed us, or kicked in once God couldn't be bothered, that is irrational and idiotic. I'd like to reiterate, I intentionally refer to all religion, although some references may involve Christianity or similar religions. All religions are less logical than the plain answer of chance and logic, with some things remaining unexplained, as opposed to trying to give a holistic answer to the creation and development of the Universe. I am not arrogant, once again, and I do falsely refer to religion, although Muslim faith may seem to bear more facts, they are still all the facts that science provides, it then adds in there are Gods etc, from what you say, which is illogical and unlikely. It all came from one person saying so, which is EXTREMELY unreliable and ludicrous. My mind is open, and you were clearly wrong when you attempted to correct my use of wording, I have not made mistakes in such a manner. 'and I do falsely refer to religion' should've read: 'and I do not falsely refer to religion'. You've obviously had a lot of time to bring together and iterate the same few points in this type debate, whereas I have not, and I have nowhere near fully explained my thoughts. You laid down a few things which merely agree that science makes sense, but then added to it with that a God exists, which to me is of no threat at all to my argument, it purely reinforces the fact that science's logic and reasoning remains strong and undeniable. I still hold my thoughts of the idiocy behind a God. You could nor deny that all religions start from a reliable source, they don't. It would be improbable for a God to exist, and the only evidence to support one may exist is a man's word, which is often unreliable and distorted, especially when mental problems arise. Which reinforces even more that the existence of a God remains improbable. What do you have to say to that? Can you prove it is reliable for a man to have started a religion? Can you prove there is a God? Then science and logic remain .. To be the most likely option, which is what I was discussing, you have the same fundamental strength of evidence and reliability as any other religion does, little-to-none. So if your mind is logical, like indeed you claim is and your religion is, what would be more likely? I'll leave you to reply. I'll remain open-minded, I'll be impressed if you provide any information which has an effect that any previous information I've been provided with does, you simply insulted me then brought a lot information to the table, which still proves not that a God is likely to exist or does, simply that you believe strongly in your religion, which is expected. Your argument against mine simply reiterates the fact that religion has a very weak foundation, and that my point is the most likely answer. OK, first of all, I never said it was the cause of our creation for sure, I said evolution EXISTS. Which is what you seem to deny, now whether it created us, to me, is LIKELY, although not proven. There is a large difference there. Following on, if my age was of no concern, why did you state it twice, and attempt to patronize me and idiotically sate that my mental age was ten years below my actual age. How old were the people who put less thought into it than me? One? I did not avoid the argument of evolution, I simply stated how it could've and most probably did work, didn't you read that? Here a lot of things are related to likelihood, it's more likely seeing as evolution DOES indeed exist, that it developed us. 'Science took HUNDREDS OF YEARS after the Quran was completed to provide us all with these facts.', I say science took HUNDREDS OF YEARS to prove these facts, they may well have and probably were theorized by scientists of the time, although not fully believed. Quote: " You ask if God made us, who made God? But that is a silly question which the vast majority of atheists ask, and which shows a total lack of thought. God, by definition, does not need creating. That is the whole point - something that created all else. If He needed creating too, would He be God? Of course not!" I'm glad you said this; you say to me, it makes no sense that something created God, he spontaneously generated, yet when science claims this is how the creation of the Universe came about (the big bang), spontaneously generated from nothing, and out of nothing, this is disregarded. Another prime example of hypocrisy, you say nothing needed to create God, but he's more complex than us, and religions tend to claim that we couldn't have come about by pure chance, because of the intricacy of our anatomy, so surely if that's the case, then no way God could have, something superior would've had to make him, if it did us? Or does that not count? Another contradiction. To continue, there were a few prophets. So what? If a few people said you never even knew said they'd even deep sea dived and taken treasures from the wreck of the titanic, would you believe them without some reasonable proof? Or would you doubt it. The fact is, it's still more likely that multiple people's words and statements were overblown, exaggerated and false than not, when they claim such amazing things. He came with the Quran, again, how do you know? How do you know he didn't write it himself. To put it into context: If I told you I'd been given a book from the lord of logic which stated that religions were absurd, in great detail, what would happen? I'd be laughed at and disbelieved. And he wouldn't say anything that contradicted previous prophets, because he could've studied them, obviously, which yet again, comes back to the ifs and buts, which are completely unreliable. Is your religion based on speculation and word of a minority of people or not? It is... ..Therefore unreliable, it is their word that the book game from 'God', 400 years is a lot of time to improve on the original story of God's existence and supremacy. 'Apologies if I have made you feel insulted. But the truth is, you have not responded to any of my points', forgive me if I'm wrong, but you insulted me prior to even having spoken to you, never mind having had the opportunity to reply to your points? Invalid. You have still provided no evidence to prove that any religion is the likelier option, you simply bring points to which I have an answer which remains more likely. 'Why would Adam, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad pbut tell people to worship Allah?', you ask me this, I reply with a question. Why have people recently run cults of thousands of people, to try and get the people to kill theirselves? They call theirselves messiahs, sent from 'God', now surely you couldn't see a reason for that, there is something a miss, as there easily could've been with those FOUR people. I still can't understand that God could've just come about - if the Universe couldn't. There has to be a definite beginning, and again, by definition, the Universe contains everything in existence. God therefore means a beginning prior to the beginning of 'everything', without any development, simply appeared, the most superior being ever, appeared. Yet the eye couldn't, the eye had to be designed, couldn't ever be made through trial and error over billions of years of evolution, no way. This all seems very, very, circumstantial, contradictory and indeed, hypocritical. So if the Quran agrees with science. According to science, there is NOTHING outside the universe, but God would have to be. And, to add to the proof that nothing is outside the Universe, the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. The theory of relativity states and it has experimented, that within the Universe, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, therefore outside the Universe is nothing. This then, leads to even MORE ifs and buts about how God could exist there. Again, making the case even MORE unreliable, which in turn, points yet AGAIN to the most reliable and logical answer, that religion isn't valid. I await your reply. As I expected, thank you for your time anyway. I knew there would be no valid response to contradict the thoughts and logic I provided you with. So you can stick to your beliefs, happily. Just don't try to tangle or deny the logic behind what I say, religion remains less likely. But you may well love the perks of religion, I wouldn't want to spoil that, just point out the flaws of it aswell. I am still not closed-minded, I remain open-minded in fact. I simply need some reliable points to be put to the table for anyone to think it might've taken effect in changing my thoughts and opinions. Good day to you all. I indeed did have an answer to how evolution 'couldn't have worked', where's your proof behind that it would need more time? Have you properly studied Darwen's theory? In his theory, he states that as evolution occurs, occasionally, relatively giant mutations can occur, causing a massive step in development is a relatively very short time. You did not account for that, and you have no proof that evolution couldn't have developed such a complex lifeform in such a time, you are simply being a hypocrite yet again. 'You merely stated this COULD be, that COULD be.' Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but you're stating if it couldn't have been, with no proof. That is the same as I did, that still does NOT detract from the fact that it is unlikely a God did all this. The source of all religions are unreliable, you have nothing to reply with to that. So I put it to you, your argument is the weak one. You misunderstand my point about the Quran, it had 600 years to improve on the Bible... You claim that it contradicts not a word of any of the other prophets, merely is more accurate and detailed, therefore it could easily have been an improvement on previous literature, you can't see that? It doesn't have to have been edited, there was also a lot of time for them to realize science would contradict religion's integrity, and therefore begin to agree with science. Now, you claim God need no beginning, time is infinite, as is 'God', yet it had a beginning, it has to have had. Now you say, again, your religion agrees with science, but science states EVERYTHING requires a beginning, so God would need one too, or does your religion conditionally agree? 'and the heavens we created with might (power) and we are expanding it', now, all these religious literatures have a common characteristic, they have an answer to almost everything. Now stating that the Universe is expanding, is nothing. It is a very vague thing to say, and I'm sure other people had said it. Proof against? I made a mistake in saying that the Universe came from nothing, but it was as you say. However this would not indicate any being having to have caused it. Anything that existed before the creation of the Universe, existed before time itself did, according to Hawking. This would mean any actions that occurred, or things that were before the Universe could NEVER be proven to have existed, it's impossible. Therefore you God cannot be proven, EVER. Therefore, your argument becomes even weaker. You say scientists can't recreate a cell, how long have they had this 'sophisticated' technology? 100 years maybe? In context to the Earth's creation, that is the most idiotic analogy of how evolution couldn't have developed life in billions of years ever. You have no valid points, less so than me. Your religion is based on Man's words, regardless of how the information came about. Therefore, IT'S UNRELIABLE. The information the Quran provides about the Universe is amazingly vague. There is no way around that, it simply outlines things that now have detailed evidence and proof behind, that, therefore, accounts not as proof. How can it be proof just because it vaguely outlines a point? If I were to say, 'there's life in the Universe, other than that on Earth', and someone later proved this reliably, would I claim to have discovered and proved this? NO. I'd have simply passed on an opinion as a fact, I would in no way have proved it. Just because there are a few things in the Quran which seem relatively interesting and pioneering, does not prove there's a superior being that made the Universe, and therefore does not contribute to the existence of a God. The likelihood of one remains very low. You simply state that a God could have made the Universe, religion still provides less reliable proof than science, therefore remains the less likely. Religion never provides further proof, simply sticks by the original literature and quotes the wordings therein, science is continually proving new things, making it the stronger and stronger argument year by year. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/22/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ Read that, they appear to be moving faster than the speed of light, but aren't. They therefore do not break the laws of physics. However, the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, and it isn't due to the movement of space, because outside the Universe is NOTHING, not even space, according to Hawking. You have not that evolution can't be at all, no-one has disproved the theory that it created everything, merely doubted. So yet again, it remains more likely than the words of any literature from an unreliable source being true. I'm not turning away, you were. There are lots of things I, nor science can currently prove, however, religion PROVES NOTHING. Vague speculation and an ancient book do not account for proof of anything, therefore, some proof is better than none. As I've repeatedly said. The reliability of the Quran nor any other religious literature can never be proved to have originated from a God, therefore any words therein are never proven. Now please: focus on that point, and please state if that IS NOT the case. I never claimed I could currently disprove the integrity of religions in existence, I merely said their explanations are much less likely. Evolution exists, you agree. So it is never going to be ruled out that it could've created the life we live today, until proven that it couldn't, unfortunately, the religious literatures can not do that either. So it's pointless you even mentioning anything, nothing in science states it couldn't be, so it's your word. That means nothing. 'The scores of people who are accepting Islam on a daily basis aren't laughing. They are learned individuals, many of them devout atheists like you.' This proves nothing, it merely shows man's willingness to hold beliefs. Does it not? Now if you do decide to respond to these words, please refrain from including quotes of the Quran, nor anything it stated. As I've repeatedly stated, they're irrelevant, unreliable, and most of all not proven. I never indicated I thought the Quran had changed, I said it had time to be an improvement on previous literatures, you can't deny that, nor can you prove an illiterate man received the book. Therefore it's based on yet more ifs and buts. Making it yet even more unreliable. I'm not completely ruling out religion, it's just undeniable less likely. Furthermore, if all these prophets were contacted by the same 'God', Jesus and Muhammed pbuh in particular, as you said preivously - why did God change his mind? Why did his supremacy exclude such details, for Jesus? Why did the Quran become so much better when God has always known everything and remained supreme? Did he make a mistake? I don't understand, why would God need to improve his words? Why would they have become more detailed in the 600 years or so between the books' creations? Summary: religion's has no real proof, just words in books of which their sources remain unreliable, therefore the mild proof science bears keeps the likelier option. Until any reliable points are given which may prove that a God wrote the literatures I see no need in considering religion as the answer to the Universe's creation. Here's a very quick reply, which requires little thought. Although these things are all statistically proved to be unlikely, they are possible. Now because something's very possible, but unlikely to happen, i.e. winning the lottery, doesn't mean it doesn't happen often when enough tries take place. The fact is, even though these things may be unlikely, they have proof that they could've happened, there is no real proof toward God as you seem to acknowledge, other than ancient literatures, therefore science remains likelier. End of story. God is not a reliable answer by any means, because of its such unreliable sources. As you've stated, science's are not, they exist, it's just unlikely for them to occur. In your arguments case it's unlikely that God is even a viable explanation, never mind any likelihood behind the words of your religious. To oppose, science is a viable explanation, and is proven to have been unlikely, more ifs and buts in what you say, again. Good day, end of reply. 'You tell me not to quote from the Quran, why shouldn?t I? This whole debate is science vs religion. How can I prove to you that my religion does not contradict, but is rather supported by, science without quoting from the Quran and showing you?' The reason why I tell you not to quote from the Quran, is indeed, that the source and the integrity of the Quran's origination are unreliable and questionable. Therefore, I see no need in quoting words from an unproven and very unreliable source, because they bear no truth, if their source is questionable. I've already shown multiple examples where you and your religion contradict the very science they apparently agree with, conditionally. Your argument is based fully on the integrity of the source of a BOOK, from which someone claims it came. Therefore your argument is less likely than any of the tiniest percentages. There's no proof toward where it came from, and never will be. That point is undeniable. I bear the likelier argument. 'You say events before the universe came into existence can?t be proved. I do believe that is exactly what I said couple of days back. Science cannot go further back than the beginning of time ? as WE know it ? to prove anything.' Okay, we couldn't prove anything happened prior to the Universe's creation, therefore to prove God created it, is indeed, impossible. Making your argument weaker again. 'When I said there are things in this universe that move faster than light I did not mean galaxies. Two electrons with opposite spins: if you take one to the other side of the universe and reverse its spin, the spin of the other will also be reversed ? instantaneouly. No time passes between this., leading to the conclusion that they are somehow communicating at the speed of infinity. Also, quantum tunnelling involves bits of matter, electrons usually, disappearing and reappearing elsewhere instantaneouly. No time passes between this either. They travel at the speed of infinity. Einstein was outraged at this discovery because he had put so much time and effort into proving NOTHING can travel faster than light. But he was wrong.' This proves nothing toward your argument, and nor does it prove they travel at the speed of light, it could be a different dimension, or form of transport we don't know of, they don't know. You did not enforce that your religion's source is reliable. 'You cannot prove God exists to a layman or someone with relatively little knowledge of science. It requires much study, you have to focus on different aspects. People believe in science today, but to prove the Quran came from God you have to study astronomy, cosmology, embryology etc at higher level, and realise no man 1400 could have had even the tiniest of chances of knowing it all. It?s not black and white. You have to make it black and white, slowly ruling out possibilities that a human could have written the Quran, by learning new things. If it was really very easy to prove, wouldn?t we all believe?' Right, it's not that it's not easy to prove, it's impossible to prove. Which again, makes your idiotic argument unlikely in comparison to science, even if science gets things wrong, it still gets things right - with sufficient proof and reliability, unlike religion. Religion will always remain less likely, more so as time continues. I need not further talk over the matter. The fact is, you bring the same type of evidence, that things in science are either unlikely, or quotes from your Quran. Otherwise you simply try and say how things to do with your religion could be possible, or say that your Quran must originate from a God because of what it says. That is not proof, it's simply vague information, you have no real idea or clue of its source, you're just speculating, according to others' words. You simply do not know. There is no need to further discuss the matter, science is more likely than your religion, because its source is simply always too unreliable, as is the speculation toward its development. I have no further interest into reading your speculation nor guesses toward what could 'possibly' and very unlikely be an answer. That does not mean I'm closed-minded, I simply don't want to go through the same thing, time and time again. If you provide anything diverse and of interest, I'll reply.

Get the answers...