So im hearing people say you believe science and not God because there's " physical evidence"?

Question

But, dont you think if God existed he would be how can i put it ? beyond logic because your right it's not logical it's theological which a lot of people dont understand and dont believe. Or he is above man made theories and because we cant figure him out with science according to some he doesnt exist

Answer 1

fooey on that.

Answer 2

But, dont YOU think if the SPAGHETTI Monster existed he would be how can i put it ? beyond logic because your right it's not logical it's theological which a lot of people dont understand and dont believe. Or it is above man made theories and because we cant figure him out with science according to some he doesnt exist

Answer 3

One physical evidence for the existence of God is the existence of the universe. If you believe that the universe just exists on it's own without a God, you have no evidence. I'm not sure why some believe you must believe there is no God simply because you need more proof. I think that it is like a moral code even though they don't call it that. And of course, most who see things this way realize they can't prove there is no God. Yet they believe it or believe they must have the right type of evidence.

Answer 4

There are really two debates going on, and one needs to be careful--they are so often mixed on here. There are those that are atheists and the arguements rely on science alone.
The second debate probably affects a larger group of people-the debate as to whether the bible is to be taken literally or allegorically. This debate has profound implications on belief.
The literal position requires just such a position as you take, that God can do what he wants-we don't have the capacity to understand-that he could have flooded the world in it's entirety and made things appear as we see them today. With that basis assumption the position is not amenable to logical arguement, other than to point out that if God can do this to make things appear that way, then it would also be within his pervue to inspire men to write an allegorical bible.
My personal position is that the bible is allegorical-and in this case there is no conflict with God creating via the big bang, evolution, etc. Like the first case, this is a basis assumption--that the bible is allegorical. There is no way to rigorously prove either assumption true or false. For example, one can not argue that between Euclidian and Reimann geometery (Euclidian based on planar, Reimann on spherical) the Euclidian geometry is correct. They are based on different assumptions-but within each geometry, the logic is self consistent. An atheist makes the basis assumption that there is no God at all, again this argument can not be proved or disproved rigorously--it is a basis assumption of that person. Therefore the debate really has no resolution. While I reject the atheist postion-my allegorical position was an Occams razor choice--I think the allegorical bible that utilizes natural law as opposed to the literal bible which is in oppostion to natural law-is the simpler of the two reamining possibilities.

Answer 5

You wrote "beyond logic because your right it's not logical it's theological which a lot of people dont understand and dont believe. Or he is above man made theories and because we cant figure him out with science according to some he doesnt exist"

That is a rationalization to delude yourself and others. To put it simply you are psychotic! Out of touch with reality.

Answer 6

You can't prove God with science, it just doesn't work that way. The problem for evolutionists is that they can't prove evolution with science either, but if it's true, it should be very easy to prove. You should just be able to look at the fossil record and see millions of remains of animals that are between stages. However, they don't exist. Furthermore, the deeper science goes, the more complex life is and the more
it becomes obvious there had to be a creator.

Answer 7

There's no such thing as "beyond logic",or "beyond space and time". That's just something people made up to excuse the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God. Either something exists, or it doesn't. And if something exists, there will be some evidence of it somewhere. Maybe there is a God, and there's tangible evidence for his existence somewhere, and we just haven't found it yet. Until we do, there is no reason whatsoever that we should assume that such a thing exists. (Any more than YOU should assume that invisible dancing turtles live in your backyard if there's no evidence for such a thing.)

Answer 8

The point really isn't that God doesn't exist - it is that you just can't tell if He exists. God doesn't exist just because you want Him to exist, otherwise so would mythic creatures of all sorts, Santa Claus, etc. That having been said, I'm not saying there is no God... All I'm saying is I don't know and neither should you if you have a thinking brain.

Answer 9

Let me guess, you were home schooled, never left your house, and there's only 4 families in your town and they're all related. The fabulous thing about faith is that it doesn't need reasoning. And the fact that you choose to attack real science in the name of God makes you a fool in both aspects.

Answer 10

Science has never attempted to disprove god.

But we now know enough about science to know how the universe, life and our planet operate, and there is no longer any need for a "supernatural" answer. Simply put, god has become unnecessary.

Answer 11

If you don't have the ability to know and understand God, then what's the point in believing in God? If understanding God is beyond our capabilities, then theology is a giant waste of time and thought.