Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Player1x3]

Sri Lumpa said:

Well, you said that you have to believe to see. If a kid was raised in the Sahara desert and never saw snow and then was flown by plane to Antartica would he not see the snow because he did not believe in it? It does seem to be at least counterintuitive.

Wow, seriously? Comparing the concept of prime mover, higher power and God to snow? Cmon, I think you're smart enough to realize why those 2 arent in any way the same and why that example sucks in itself.

From another post:

Tell that to Diagoras of Melos. Though I doubt that it was as widespread as today.

One person can hardly make up dozens of millions who thought otherwise, and dozens of other, more famous and noteble philisophers who were at least deists.

 

 

Like I said, I do not wish to do all the research and I also feel I have overstated my case there but for the second part I disagree:

"At the time, however, Rousseau's strong endorsement of religious toleration, as expounded by the Savoyard vicar in Émile, was interpreted as advocating indifferentism, a heresy, and led to the condemnation of the book in both Calvinist Geneva and Catholic Paris." (from wikipedia's article on Rousseau)

Even saying that religious toleration was good was scandalous. It might not have been illegal but homosexuality is not illegal today and yet a lot of prominent people hide theirs because it is not politically acceptable.

Ever since (lets say at least) 18th cenutry atheism was accepted by law and wasnt a punishable offence (at least in wester and middle Europe) he problem is, most atheists just really love to insult religion and religous people and show total and absolute disrespect for someone's beliefs,they were not as much atheists in the real sense of the word as muhc as they were anti-christian and back than people didnt tolerate insults at God or Christ.

 

 

I disagree. They can cohabit and if they go against each other you can choose side but there are ways in which they go against each others. Specifically, when religions describe the world in a way that is different than what science understand it to be. If religion says the earth is at the center of the universe and science says otherwise then they go against each other (galileo). If religion changes its tack to say the same as science then they stop going againgst each other. And vice versa, if a prevailing scientific theory changes from an eternal universe to a universe with a beginning then they stop going against each other ion that point (though maybe not in the details).

Whoa, I think I found the problem in our conversation. I dont, in any way, see religion as ideology that explains the world around us. Parts like ''Earth was creatd in 7 days'' and ''Noah's Ark'' and ''Aerth is center of the universe'' hold absolutely zero importantce in Christianity (at least in y point of view) Those are all stuff that was added to Christianity early one, and some of them are not even the true part of the Bible (New Testament) Old Testament holds little to no ground of importantce in Christianity. Christianity is based off on teachings of Jesus Christ and that is EXACTLY what Christianity is about. That is why New Testament is most importnat (I would even argue THE ONLY important) book of Christianity, because Bible is the New Testament.There couldnt be christian religion before Jesus, and thus, Old Testamen holds no ground. I see religion as the spiritual guide and teaching on how to live your life in good morality and in free will. All that stuff about creating the earth, Adam and eve, and Noah's Ark hold no importantce to the true point of Christianity. This is what most, if not all important christian thinkers in science realized.

Bolded: or both, they are not mutually exclusive and the latter makes the former more likely.

First, faith is irrational by definition. if it is not irrational then it is not faith but knowledge. If you know that god exists then you do not have faith that he exists. I do not have faith that the chair I sit on exists. I know by virtue of not having my ass hitting the floor.

Again, believe to see. There really is no point in arguing about this, because a person without faith couldnt possibly realize what am I talking about. Not that I blame you, I just think that we'll never reach common ground due to our different beliefs on the matter. As for the actual response to your replay, its the same as before. In theism, faith CAN LEAD TO KNOWLEDGE, where you no longer believe in God, but know that he exists.

Second, you start your line of logic with believe to see. If you start with belief then it is faith, not reason, and thus by definition irrational. 

In theism, faith alwas leads to realization (maybe thats a better word than knowledge)

As for faith leading to knowledge, I would argue that it definitely can lead to the appearance of knowledge but if it could lead to real kowledge then the best scientists would be clerics. Also, if faith by itself can lead to knowledge then every religion would lead to knowledge equally as they all have faith. 

Like I said before, theism is different than science, in theism, true faith can lead to discovery and realization, and later, to the point, where you no longer beleive in God, but know he exists. For this, true and righteous faith is necessary. As for you last sentence, yes you are correct. And I think you'll find that all religions deliver the same message, only they use different symbolics and worshiping methods, regardless how many fanatics choose to interpret it for thier own purposes, because religion has been greatly abused by men in higher power.

Lastly, one question: Let's say you have to take a plane and you have two choices. One is a plane designed by aeronautical engineers applying scientific principles of lift and the other is designed by clerics of your religion who got the knowledge of how to design it strictly through application of their faith. Which plane would you take?

Like I said above, religion isnt here to explain this world, thats what science does. Religion has totally different purpose and aim than science, regardless if some misguided and misinformed fanatics told and tricked people into thinking otherwise. To answer your question, I would choose the first plane, as I would always choose science over religion when it comes to explaining this world and life from biological standpoint.

 

I must say I find it rather surprising as I find the theory of evolution harder to explain than the theory of the big bang as the big bang has got the universe's expansion and the cosmic background to support it while evolution is either circumstantial evidence (fossil record) or complicated genetics.

The cause of the big bang on the other hand, I would agree has yet to be properly explained.

I dont know, I was always under the impression that evolution was fully proven fact, seeing as how many evolutionists are active and liud about their beliefs all over the internet and media.