Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

So far science has proven that the chance of God's existence is less that 0.000000000001%.

That's a great tagline!

Since when can science prove things it cannot comprehend?

[Paphitis]

But "God" would have to exist to create the universe before the universe existed. If nothing existed, then how did He achieve his marvelous feat?

And whom or what power created the creator?

Well if nothing existed before the universe, where did the atom come from?

Yes we know about the big bang around 14 billion years ago, but once again, if your argument is solely based on intelligent design, then how do you explain Charles Darwin's scientific facts about evolution.

Also, if God designed the universe, then who designed God or how did He come to be from non existence? Then would have to be a point where God just came to be, but from what or where?

Just like Charles Darwin's scientific works in Biology, it is only a matter of time before Physics also catches up by making even more revolutionary discoveries about the universe and the Big Bang....

[Get Real!]

Charles Darwin wasn’t even the “inventor” of evolution… he just got credit for it!

I forget the name of the younger scientist who beat Darwin to it but has only began to get acknowledged these days.

[Paphitis]

So far science has proven that the chance of God's existence is less that 0.000000000001%.

That's a great tagline!

Since when can science prove things it cannot comprehend?

That's where you are mistaken.

Science is working on this every day, and the claims of God's existence are under Science's microscopes as we speak, despite the furor of the religious.

There is much science does understand and everything has been disproved so far, and soon all remaining doubt will be removed all together.

Physics will have their Charles Darwin one day as well....

For now, just rejoice that you still have about 0.000000000001% chance that God exists....

[Get Real!]

So far science has proven that the chance of God's existence is less that 0.000000000001%.

That's a great tagline!

Since when can science prove things it cannot comprehend?

That's where you are mistaken.

Science is working on this every day, and the claims of God's existence are under Science's microscopes as we speak, despite the furor of the religious.

There is much science does understand and everything has been disproved so far, and soon all remaining doubt will be removed all together.

Physics will have their Charles Darwin one day as well....

For now, just rejoice that you still have about 0.000000000001% chance that God exists....

Here’s what I think of you and your pitiful earthly “science” -->


For a bunch of selfish murderers who can’t even make a return trip to the moon and back, we’ve got one hell of a nerve as a species…

[Paphitis]

So far science has proven that the chance of God's existence is less that 0.000000000001%.

That's a great tagline!

Since when can science prove things it cannot comprehend?

That's where you are mistaken.

Science is working on this every day, and the claims of God's existence are under Science's microscopes as we speak, despite the furor of the religious.

There is much science does understand and everything has been disproved so far, and soon all remaining doubt will be removed all together.

Physics will have their Charles Darwin one day as well....

For now, just rejoice that you still have about 0.000000000001% chance that God exists....

Here’s what I think of you and your pitiful earthly “science” -->


For a bunch of selfish murderers who can’t even make a return trip to the moon and back, we’ve got one hell of a nerve as a species…

The moon has already been conquered, and Richard Branson is even designing his space hotels now...

NASA is working on sending man to Mars, and before you know it, human space travel will become something every human will take for granted, just like inter continental air travel today.

Face it GR!, in a few years time, little school children will be reading all about Ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian myths along with the myth of the omnipotent Christian God in their history classes....

[Oracle]

Charles Darwin wasn’t even the “inventor” of evolution… he just got credit for it!

I forget the name of the younger scientist who beat Darwin to it but has only began to get acknowledged these days.

Amongst others of that time, for which only scant records exist, we have a whole treatise by Epicurus discussing "survival of the fittest", how things compete and become extinct and only those best fit for the job are alive/present at any point in time.

This, in a nutshell, was the trigger for Wallace and Darwin explaining their findings in this way, which led to the development of the "Theory of Evolution by Natural selection".

It's a well known "forgotten detail" amongst academics ....

[Oracle]

But "God" would have to exist to create the universe before the universe existed. If nothing existed, then how did He achieve his marvelous feat?

And whom or what power created the creator?

Well if nothing existed before the universe, where did the atom come from?

There is no need to suggest there was a beginning, since there is no end. The Universe/Multiverse has always been in existence since time is infinite, ongoing, without beginning or end. There is evidence our particular universe contracts and expands (expanding at the moment since its birth 14 Billion years ago) ... It effectively breathes in and out, infinitely.

We only feel the need to account for a "beginning" because of our own mortality. The universe does not die, so there is no reason for it to ever have been born.

It is more powerful than the imagined attributes we assigned to this human construct called "God" ... which has many failings, deriving from our own shortcomings.

[Talisker]

Diversity is an old chest nut used by those for a variety of reasons, but I think those that preach social diversity have really taken it to the extreme and allowed things to get out of control. A watered down version of Sharia Law is being practiced in the UK, in the name of 'human diversity'. The world has gone mad...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 749183.ece

Also, human diversity means that adults are free to raise their children in accordance with their own faith, which does not seem so bad, but when you consider that infants are often labeled as either a Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant child, when they have not even had a chance to to to make up their own mind by analyzing and comparing all faiths, creationism and evolution, we all turn a blind eye saying "how wonderful it is that our society is so diverse and rich". However, if someone was to label their infant child as a Communist, Fascist, Marxist or Socialist, then we would be disgusted and yet the 2 are similar when you think about it.

And yes, I do believe that the world would be a better place if there were no religions, and I believe religiosity will diminish over time....

Now that's what I call evolution...

Anyway, thanks for the links and the lesson....

Oh and btw...which of the above 7 options best fits your view about the existence of the omnipotent almighty deity?

Attempting to control or reduce human diversity led to the Holocaust in 1930s and 40s Europe - extreme example, but worth considering! Yes, it is difficult to find the correct balance between tolerance and maintaining uniform structures within society, but I personally would prefer liberalism to suppression. As for Sharia law in the UK, this is being applied only in appropriate cases and in a very limited manner. I don't particularly agree with this change, as I believe all UK citizens should live within the same legal and judicial system, but the fact is that this is a highly multicultural society these days, and so long as the systems used (mainly in social and financial disputes as I understand it) are fair and humane, then I can put up with it (possibly and selfishly because it is unlikely to affect me!). In fact your links provide excellent examples of typical right-wing press reporting with the usual racial and cultural prejudices to the fore. For example, the Daily Telegraph headline refers to '40% of Muslims wanting Sharia Law in the UK' but neglects to highlight the fact a greater proportion (41%) were not in favour. This is pretty typical of the majority of the UK press reporting on multicultural Britain.

You mentioned the issue of children being brought up with a faith dictated by the wishes of the parents. I have no issue with that at all - most parents want their offspring to 'fit in' to their respective societies, and the major religions are not generally at odds with the general social structures or morals or laws of countries where they are practiced. Indeed they often attempt to influence societal change. Of course, you don't have to be a fundamentalist, or even intermittent practitioner, of any religion to teach your children 'Thou shalt not kill'. If you choose to focus on a few controversial paraphrases or take each line of the major religious texts literally, as you were highlighting earlier, then it is possible to consider religion to be a 'bad' thing with 'evil' messages. However, I consider the testaments to be ancient stories with different interpretations depending on the overall context or translation, and, in my opinion, much of it should be taken with a pinch of salt (I obviously don't believe in the story that is related in Genesis - after all, I am a scientist, not a creationist, but to my mind choosing to discount the creationist story does equate to there being no God). We should though, remember that there are more people in the world believing in some sort of spirituality than those who do not. Why should that be? For religions to survive they must be able to support and sustain their congregations - there is a natural evolution there too, they must adapt to, or influence, the changing world or they will die. So, of course there are battles within and between religions regarding the way forward for their various flocks - as already highlighted we hear about the extreme Jihad-declaring Muslim clerics and not the (majority) peaceful, the anti-abortion or anti-contraception Christians and not those who are less radical in their views, etc.

You asked to which of the seven options in Dawkins spectrum I subscribe. Well, not the first or the seventh - I'm not 100% sure of anything when it comes to religion and spirituality, and basically vacillate between the other five depending on what is happening in my life at the time. After all, and this is the most important influencing factor, I am a Libran , and can never make my mind up about anything. Religious tolerance is a good thing, but what about those Leos? Bunch of complete and utter tossers, eh? Undoubtedly should be wiped from the face of the Earth!

[Piratis]

Theres too much design involved in the universe for there not to be a God. It's like finding a watch on the floor and claiming it just ''happened'' out of nowhere.

So who designed the designer?

Coco Chanel!

I don't think it would work like that. If God created us this way, it doesn't mean God would also be like that...

You wouldn't expect God to have hair, nails or have to eat food and pass waste, so why expect God to be given birth to?

But "God" would have to exist to create the universe before the universe existed. If nothing existed, then how did He achieve his marvelous feat?

And whom or what power created the creator?

You’re applying earthly knowledge and logic to comprehend heavenly matter/issues…

Man, likes to think that they have the capacity to understand everything!

It goes to show how stupid we are…

On the contrary GR, it is the theists who think they have the capacity to understand everything by using "God" as the answer to everything they couldn't possibly know.

We are all humans, and we know very few things. So shouldn't we just admit this fact instead of trying to fill our lack of knowledge with "God"?

Go 20.000 years to the past and imagine a solar eclipse. The people of that time would not be able to explain why the sun disappears in the middle of the day. The theists of that time would think in this way: "Something 'magical' happened which we can not explain. Therefore this 'magical' event must be related to God". On the other hand an agnostic would say: "Something happened which I can not explain. Maybe future generations will be able to explain it, or maybe humanity will never be able to explain this phenomenon"

Sure, all humans are "stupid" and we have very little knowledge. But obviously the most stupid ones are those who need to fill the vast gabs of their knowledge with "Gods" instead of just accepting that there are things we can not explain yet or we will never be able to explain.

The most funny thing is that as science progresses and is able to fill some of those gabs which were previously filled with "Gods", religions are trying to excuse themselves by claiming that what is proven wrong is just a "metaphor". (They didn't seem to believe it was a "metaphor" when they were burning people alive for daring to dispute their nonsense)