Raider Man;56897 said:
First, absolutely, not all science are true
Yet most of it is.
Raider Man;56897 said:
Why would God believe in someone who don't believe in him at all?
Oh, I don't know, maybe because he's described as "all-caring"? Not like you would have any reasonable way of proving this "description" or "trait" of God's personality, regardless.
Raider Man;56897 said:
Third, not because he allows it, there is something called Resurrection
No, if god has the power to stop suffering and does not, that means he is allowing it. That's basic logic right there. That is, if his ludicrous existence is even real in the first place. Doesn't matter though, even if "it" does allow it, it doesn't mean "it" does not exist.
Raider Man;56897 said:
remember that not all scienece are true, it's just a hypothesis.
Yeah, but remember, science isn't just made up of hypotheses, a lot of it are truths backed up with constant experimentation on a daily basis and logical reasoning. Science is the countinual search for truth.
Raider Man;56897 said:
The Holy book is message from God which unforunatily it had been rewrited be other people and that makes us hard to believe the true story, but remember that God send many prophets to let people believe in him.
As far as I'm concerned his existence is similar to that of Unicorns and Dragons: There's simply no proof.
Raider Man;56897 said:
Question: What's there before big bang?
What was there before god? Nothing? He just always existed? Don't ask questions that cannot be logically answered, especially when the exact reverse can be said.
Raider Man;56897 said:
How could you believe in Big bang if you weren't even there? It's just a scienece hypothesis, till now it's not 100% true.
Yeah, but it holds way more logic-merit than religion. And it isn't a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory. That's why it holds way more ground. How can you believe in God creating everything if you weren't even there? Not to mention till now, it hasn't even been considered and/or verified as even 50% true. Now do you see why it is more logical to believe in the big bang rather than god?
As I'm sure it's clear, I'll openly state that I'm an atheist. Someone who takes the logical and neutral stance of god not existing.
Also, to any who might have said to 'prove that "god" isn't real':
The burden of proof is on you to prove why he is real. I mean, only if you are actually trying to debate with me (or anyone else). For example, I don't have to prove why there are not 55 invisible chickens around me that I can't sense. Reason being, if the 55 invisible chickens do not in fact exist then how could I ever come to a conclusion? No one is ever logically asked to prove a negative. If you are using the statment: "Prove how he isn't real." then you are arguing that my lack of belief in religion is wrong. With that logic, argumentation ethics would have you tell me why it is wrong. And in a debate, the way you would do that is to prove how he is real. I don't have to prove how he isn't. Because if he is in fact not real, then I'll be looking forever. Golden rule in debating: NEVER argue telling someone to prove how a subject is not real. Ever.
^ Also, I'll have to give some credit to Redneckboy, I used a statement that he once wrote as a base for this.