TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

existence of god (why religion is the answer)

today i had a conversation with a friend about religion ,god,quantum physics and forbidden archaeology .
the real question was ,does god exist ,if yes then why he created the universe ,was he bored ? religion can not give us satisfactory answer !
also religion is some thing very new , comparing it with human existence (forbidden archaeology) .
who created the universe ? is it better to believe that god created it instead of no one .(if we say god created it then the question is ,with what ?)

sorry for my english :(
one more thing ,please do some research on forbidden archaeology before replaying .


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Oct 18 2012: Can you see the difference between me claiming I am am god and you not being to disprove that.

      The burden of proof is surely on the person claiming some thing exists rather than having to disprove 3000 different invisible intangible virtually non existent unverifiable gods and goddesses.
      • Oct 19 2012: I beg to differ, in the scientific community a theory is accepted if it cannot be proved wrong after there is evidence it may be correct. If it cannot be proven wrong then it is accepted as a current theory. I'm not saying that we should therefore accept the existence of a God because nobody can disprove it however you cannot say that it is entirely one party's responsibility to provide evidence. We accept the current model of the atom not because we can see it and all its components, it just hasn't ever been proven to be incorrect. A quote by Einstein was "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"

        The point I'm trying to get across is that neither one side can say "you can't prove you're right therefore you're wrong". The day when one side can prove the other wrong I'll stop being agnostic.
        • thumb
          Oct 22 2012: I'm not sure you are completely correct re science.

          In science you both try and prove and disprove the hypothesis.

          Its not enough to say angels are responsible for gravity, you can not disprove so that becomes a valid theory.

          Atomic theory makes predictions and these are consistently correct.

          Yes science is only our best approximation of reality.

          I take your point that we know nothing absolutely.

          However if you can not distinguish scientific knowledge and its practical application in technology that works with mutually exclusive conflicting and unverifiable religious claims by Buddhists, Mormons, Catholics, evangelicals, jainists, Muslims, and past and present believes of thousands of different gods with associated dogmas, creation stories, moral codes, and mythology, then you may be missing my point.

          Believing something doesn't make it real and some beliefs are supported by more evidence than others, if the Jews are correct all the other religions are false and misleading. Maybe the Mayans had it right and everyone alive today is wrong.
        • Oct 22 2012: A scientific theory must firstly be falsifiable. That means that if the theory is false, an observation can be made that will show it to be false.
          Atomic theory has been tested many times and proven false and the theory refined again and again. When I was in public school, it was a minature solar system. Now its a little more complicated.
          If you are claiming god exists, then what is the experiment or observation that will prove it false. If you declare that none can exists because god exists on faith, then it is not a valid scientific theory.
          The correct phrase is then "you can't prove your wrong, so you are wrong"
          Isn't the universe wonderful. I wouldn't live anywhere else.
      • Oct 22 2012: You've picked a rather extreme example there, you've also missed the point of my comment. I'm not saying that if you can't disprove something then it must be true, I specifically said that there must be evidence that it may be true. (although you've picket gravity, nobody has any idea of why that force occurs)

        Above you said it must be the responsibility of those who believe in whatever God(s) they have to prove that they exist, I'm saying this is not the case. I'm not saying either side is completely responsible for providing all the evidence, yes we have proven a great number of things to such a degree as they should be accepted as fact, many of which conflicts with a great many religious beliefs, creationist ones especially. However, this does not disprove the existence of a God does it? A great many people who believe in God also accept scientific theory such as evolution, the fact of the matter is that some things remain uncertain and they choose to believe in God to explain it. They also provide a reason behind that belief which is a close to evidence as you're going get when it comes to questions such as how the first life actually began or why the universe began in the first place. (assuming you accept the Big Bang as the current theory)
        • Oct 22 2012: Almost.
          If you claim that god exists you must have some evidence to back it up. There is no getting around that.
          You must also have additional ways, or there must be theoretical (and practical) ways to show that some observation (or experiment, whatever) requires this same god to exist.
          Furthermore, if you design this experiment to show that your god exists and it fails (falsability) then you must adjust your theory to accomidate the new result.
          Your choice of evolution as an example is interesting since it is a scientific theory that has held against the test of time and may challanges and was proposed long before any creationist ideas.
          The creationist are the ones on the hook to say why their hypothesis should be taken seriously and they need to come up with an experiment or observation that evolution cannot explain that their ideas can and if that experiment goes against them, be prepared to modify their ideas to account for the result.
          I assure you, they are not ready to do that and therefore are not welcome at the scientific theory table.
          I`ve never like the phrase big bang. I prefer ``Horrendous Space Kablooie``

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.