Originally Posted by SmallBowl

Although personally Im agnostic, I feel youre overlooking what many christians believe; that the bible is not literal in its stories and teachings, creating the world in 6 days is the most commonly used example for this - what is a day to god?

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

Although personally Im agnostic, I feel you're overlooking what many christians believe; that the bible is not literal in its stories and teachings, creating the world in 6 days is the most commonly used example for this - what is a day to god?

Originally Posted by Veoo

I think christianity is such a widespread religion that people feel the need to defend it because its so excepted so it MUST have some ground, but I feel like they're so many different relgions and each one goes in and out of style (for example: The Greek and Roman Gods used to be the widespread excepted religion) and each one is based off a innate need to explain the explainable. I believe religion has become more of a guidance tool and a way of understanding ones self by fabricating a higher being.

ALSO

Its interesting how you guys constantly point out my small amount evidence that god doesn't exist yet you provide no evidence for your argument: that god may exist.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

The inexplicable could be viewed as evidence for the existence of religion.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

However, whether its true or not, if the lessons and teachings taken are positive from the religion - could it be seen as a reason to live and a life to live by even if it is fabricated?

Originally Posted by cowmeat

What on earth does sentence even mean?

So a person has made himself a set of rules and ideals to live by and considers that his reason for living. That is not a religion specific situation, that is pretty much how all people live their lives.
If religion is fabricated then it should hold no special powers over any other set of ideals and rules.

What you are saying is that "People make their own reason for living". I don't mind that, but it's just a bit of a redundant statement with no real value.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

The way science works is providing explanations to phenomena, the explanation that makes the least assumptions and explains the phenomenon best is the one that is considered most likely to be true.

There is not another theory as far as I am aware to why the big bang occurred, therefore a deity could be seen as a potential explanation to this - perhaps an explanation with less assumptions that is more likely that other explanations, so this is evidence (obviously not proof but evidence nonetheless) that this could be the case.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

I'm not sure that is how everyone lives their life, but yes people living by their own values, rules and ideals and seeing it as a reason to live is the gist of what I was saying.

Its not quite the same as making their own reason for living though as they have not invented it - whether someone else invented it or whether it is true is not entirely relevant to this discussion, but either way its not the same as them inventing it themselves

Originally Posted by cowmeat

This is just a pure logical fallacy. Look at my edited post above.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

"People make their own reason for living, or take it from others" Now there you go. Fixed it for you by adding nothing of worth.

You are just nitpicking the semantics of the statement with no real value. Which you even are saying yourself, why even make this argument.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

Trying to backtrack on statements

Originally Posted by cowmeat

First of all, good job picking the wrong parts of the page I linked, but besides that, let's look at your logic.

"Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something."

Evidence (in this context) cannot be a maybe, evidence cannot be subjective, evidence should be factual. In this way it does not differ from proof.
Evidence is used to establish proof, so it cannot be just "we don't know of better explanations"

Your logic leads to this:

Someone commited a crime
Someone says Person X is guilty.
There is no conclusive proof for Person X doing the crime.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

Now let's do the same with what you're saying

something "created" the universe
Someone says god created it
There is no conclusive proof for god creating it

WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF GOD CREATING THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

You see why you're simply irrefutably just plain wrong?

You are basing your whole statement on a logical fallacy and then refusing to back out on it. No point in having a conversation with someone like you.

Originally Posted by cowmeat

How are you so god damn dense that you do not understand this simple sentence.


THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE

And with this, I am done with you.