Proving part^* of science does not prove or disprove the nature of our existence.

They just disprove religions. They don't prove that nothing exists beyond this spacetime.

For example, we can live in a simulation^**.

^*according to Gödel, no science can be proven 100%.

^**evidence from the realm of the quantum mechanics point towards the universe being like 3d game renderer: just like a 3d game rendered clips the non-visible polygons, so does reality: a particle does not manifest itself as a solid object until it is observed^***.

^***i.e. until the need to go from the quantum level to the macro level.

If it was proven, I'd stop believing in Him. I'd say to Him "Sorry, but I thought you were someone else." But the existence of God will never be proven. By existence and proof I here mean the kind that atheists and scientists demand. It's a bit shame that many believers and many atheists think they're talking about the same thing. I mean, some believers think the existence of God can be proven in a way that atheists would accept. Those believers might not understand the philosophical problem in trying to define existence itself. We have lots of people, who have lost their faith at some point, when they have gained more knowledge of the scientific nature of the universe. And we have people, who haven't lost their faith, while remaining on an "uneducated" level. And we have people, who have never lost their faith, even though they have accomplished a deep knowledge of science. All Christians form a very heterogeneous group of varyinf beliefs. And despite lots of fights between these different beliefs, Christians hope to stick together. I think believing in creationism, Darwin or ID is not what defines whether you are a good or bad Christian or a Christian at all. Though that is for some Christians a crucial point, as well as for some atheists, too.

Why lock it, I'm curious how long these guys can keep arguing for.

This sums the discussion. There are a few people trying to explain the science of evolution etc. to others who are ignorant of the evidence and don't want to change what they think.
It's also true in the other direction.

Think about the meaning of your own posts first.

So you are saying that if you 'enjoy' being religious then you are dumb, and if you don't 'enjoy' religion then you are smart.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

There is nothing to argue, at least not from the Atheist side of things. It goes something like this:
Theist: "God exists."
Atheist: "Please define God and provide evidence."
Theist: (various Bible quotes, personal feelings and other non-evidence)
Atheist: "That's not evidence."
Theist: "Is too. And you didn't provide any evidence either."
Atheist: "It is not, and I don't have to. I'm not postulating anything."

On the Creationist vs. Evolutionist front, it goes like this:
Evolutionist: "The variety of life forms has been caused by evolutionary mechanisms over the past few billion years, and it's still happening."
Creationist: "The variety of life forms was designed by an undefined intelligent creator."
Evolutionist: "I have evidence: carbon analysis of fossils clearly shows that species become extinct, and new ones appear all the time; we have replicated the first biochemical steps toward life in a lab situation; we understand genetics to the point where we can actively manipulate genes to produces mutations, and we know that random mutations happen all the time; we can observe how differences in physical traits alter an individual's chances of reproduction; the entire evolutionist explanation is free of internal contradictions."
Creationist: "I don't believe you. I need more evidence."

In other words:

• The God hypothesis lacks evidence, and until such evidence is provided, I'll reject the hypothesis.

• The Creationist hypothesis lacks evidence, and has internal contradictions (e.g., how come we can find plenty dinosaur fossils much much older than the oldest human remains, with no overlap whatsoever?); it also suffers from the unsupported, ill-defined creator concept (where did he come from in the first place? Why did he design the Universe? Where is he now?)

• The Evolution hypothesis comes with plenty of evidence, it is free of internal contradictions, and it explains the variety in Earth's life forms with a minimum of unexplained assumptions. Until something comes along that is at least equally evident, equally free of contradictions, equally powerful in explaining the variety, and uses less unexplained assumptions, I'll stick with it.

This, you got right. Intelligence and religiousness aren't necessarily connected. However, there is a big difference between not being religious out of carelessness or lack of desire, and not being religious as a result of extensive soul-searching.

If you're serious it's sad. Really. And I do not consider myself an atheist.

^^

Spot on. You think Tobias is a prophet?

Its a tricky situation, if we let you use the Bible as proof, then where do you draw the line? If the Bible is proof of Gods existence, then who are you to say that the Koran is not proof of Allah's?

If you believe that the Bible is proof of His existence thats fine and dandy, but don't write about it here expecting anyone to take you seriously. Its a book written by man that got out of control.

Want modern day proof? Look at what L. Ron Hubbard did. The people that are in the Church of Scientology think much like you do, they just have a different set of beliefs. Now don't say they are being brainwashed because you would be digging yourself a very deep hole.

EDIT:
But quite frankly, don't bother replying, it makes no sense. If you think the Bible is proof of God existence, I think you are a complete nutjob. If I had a saying, I'd institutionalize people like you.

On the other hand you probably think I'm an asshole/idiot/jerk. But thats fine. This is the Internetz.

And I do hope people don't carry these kinds of things to the other forums on a.cc. Sure, I may call you a nutjob regarding religion, but I think most of you are fantastic people.

I have a friend that is deeply religious. Sure I think he is a nutjob (I tell him regularly). But we both don't take each other very seriously because, like I said, such debates are useless and never lead anywhere.

So this is it from me in this thread. Have fun!

Edgar, maybe you as bible expert can answer me one question i am looking for an answer since a long time:

You know in the story where Jesus was born there came three kings from orient, Kaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. They came because of the star, which was an astrological sign to them. So, if in the most important point of the most important christian story astrology has such an important role, how can it be christians don't believe in astrology?

First point:
You do realize they probably think the same way of your religion right? But you are right and they are wrong. I get it.

Second point:
It wasn't written all at once. It was edited heavily by the Church. But you are right and I'm am wrong and what I say is not true. I get it.

Third point:
They believe just like you believe. Telling them little grey men don't exist is like telling you God doesn't exist. But you are right and I am wrong. I get it.

Fourth point:
Not to them. Saying its a racket is basically insulting their religion. But why not? You are right and they are wrong. I get it.

Seriously I do get it and you are truly right. I really don't want to be involved in this so why not end this by me saying I agree with you completely.

If it's not scientific, then it is not ultimately evidence. If you want to argue on the same playing field, commit to basic logic, and make your way from there.

What you quote from the Bible is all fine and dandy, and it's fascinating, no doubt about that, but it doesn't prove anything except that someone wrote it all down. Doesn't mean it actually happened exactly like this. You know those novels where strange things happen? Exactly the same thing.