We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 324 comments are related to the topic:
God or no god ... where's the evidence?
God or no god ... where's the evidence?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 324
|
By:
lfc1971,
The video I linked is too scary? Surely you have nothing to worry about if you don't believe in them! |
|
By:
I prefer not to look
 |
|
By:
It is nice to go to church at Christmas time for the carols, very beautiful.
|
|
By:
where did the oxygen hydrogen come from then? we just cant answer the question - both sides. also, im not sure a gambling forum is the best place to ask the question. does any of us here actually go to whatever church or thing regularly? im sure we could find the same questions in a google search where scientists and believers(and maybe both) can go into more detail.
|
|
By:
but when scientists look out into space to find life, they do so looking for only a scant selection of conditions.
This is because they are surprisingly few things required for life to exist. They dont question the parts required because they have proven how it works. There are still questions with the big bang, essentially how those particles and forces came about, but thats a million miles ahead of the creationist who says 'god did it all' 'dont question god' and 'you only see proof when you want to see it' |
|
By:
So, in conclusion, what the goddists are saying is there must be a god because we have a universe and oxygen, etc.
And because we can't prove there is no god, there must be a god. mmm, I'm not persuaded. |
|
By:
It is not possible for life to exist anywhere, including earth.
|
|
By:
eh?
|
|
By:
no. in conclusion - believers are not intelligent enough to prove he exists. and non believers are not intelligent enough to prove he doesn't. nothing wrong with that at all. maybe somewhere down the line in a few thousand years we might be more advanced, who knows. it is an awful pity we cant live longer i would love to be around in 100,000 years when a lot of what we cant figure out today will be easily understandable.
|
|
By:
bubble theory says that the reason we have struggled to find obvious forms of life is that it wipes itself out around the same time (after splitting the atom)
humans probs will be gone within next few thousand years. *the other reason we havnt found life is because we havnt been able to look efficiently enough. Within the last couple of decade the number of 'Goldilocks' possible planets have grown exponentially, so realistically life elsewhere could be found within the next 5-10 years |
|
By:
its a stupid trick everything on this planet is influenced by man and man alone no one or no god will put any woes right it is solely down to man
|
|
By:
if they wanted to be nice thats a different thing
|
|
By:
senyatta - i'm afraid your line of argument is flawed.
bertrand russell dealt with this a long time ago. when you propose something as fantastic as a creator, the burden of proof is not on people who don't believe you to disprove it; it is on you to prove it. Russell's example was a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun, impossible to detect by any telescope. where should the burden of proof lie? should we all believe you until i can show that there is no teapot, which is impossible for me to do, or should we expect you to provide proof for such an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence. and besides, can you not see the absurdity and the unnecessary layer(s) of complication, in claiming that a creative force was required and yet not feeling any need to explain the origin of that creative force. |
|
By:
dustybin 07 Sep 15 15:50
senyatta you could practically make everything from hydogen, oxygen and an energy source from my understanding unfortunately not. you can make, oxygen, ozone, hydrogen, water and hydrogen peroxide. you'll be needing some carbon and nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorous if you want to go any further. |
|
By:
Anyhow,the opening poster asked for evidence of God,well im not sure about this but I believe there was a guy who walked this earth a long time ago who claimed to be the son of god.
I can not prove this guy(names Jesus Christ)was or was not the son of god,but he must have made a very big impact with everyone who was in his presence. when I look at todays date 7th September 2015 I ask myself why 2015,and then I remember its two thousand and 15 years since this Jesus Christ was born so I guess this guy must have been very very important for everyone to count the years since he was born. |
|
By:
And I have never seen an atheist complain or object about the year on a cheque or bank draught made out to him.So sometimes it suits to use the year of our lord.
|
|
By:
china uses different calendar
hee hee |
|
By:
so the chinese (1.3 billion)
and then the hindus (1 billion) and then the muslims (1.57 billion) so that's over half the world. |
|
By:
I often wonder what an atheist eats for his dinner on Christmas day.?
 |
|
By:
but the Christians top the poll.
|
|
By:
According to the bible, Jesus was someone who claimed he was the son of God. That doesn't make it true. There were hundreds of people walking around at that time making similar claims.
Just because someone claims he is the son of God is not evidence for the existence of God, chances are he's just another crank. |
|
By:
The OP is confusing God with IS.
|
|
By:
Dstyle
I'm no expert in this field, but Dawkins explains it along these lines; Oxygen makes a natural bond via its easiest pairing (to hydrogen), creating water. Water exposed to ultra violet rays from the sun creates a 'soup' that dries out as crust at the edges and seemingly creates (compounds?my word not his). But it only happens within a vacuum now, though given enough time we can still re create this process, the reason it doesn't act the same way now is because we are too far down the evolution cycle (I.e. The presence of bacteria etc that evolved from this process eats the crust before it changes) If there are errors there they are likely mine not his. |
|
By:
Jesus was a philosopher as far as I can see. Everything he spoke about was already established in philosophy even down to the sermon on the mount being almost identical to Socrates 500 years earlier.
The Ten Commandments are to me just the manifestation of implied virtues (that's had evolved from the original five from Socrates day) Everything from sacrifice to materialism had already been done, as far as I know Jesus didn't really add anything, except he sweated the nut a bit. It could just be down to the stupidity of mankind plus time that told stories greater than the actual events and ppl bought it. For those who say God is good. You miss the fact he made evil, so he's pernicious. How about being born into sin for things you never did (original sin) that's vindictive. |
|
By:
2.2 billion Christians
1.6 billion Muslims 1 billion Hindus All believe in different gods. Could someone please tell me which gods exists and which ones don't. Maybe a Christian on here can explain, and use evidence to prove there is no all-powerful Allah. |
|
By:
I imagine if it's to be believed (religion) that it's a bit like Chinese whispers. That's why there's variations in the stories between them all. Just because they tell a different version of the story, it doesn't mean it's not true.
|
|
By:
Also when trying to find God. You wont be able to find him by just studying the laws of nature. We want to know whether anything exists outside of nature.
If I see a Shakespeare play, I wouldn't see Shakespeare in it would I? |
|
By:
There's been some twaddle posted on here by those who are certain there is a god.
I'll ask again in the hope that one of them, just one, can answer my qustion rather than resorting to obfuscation. Where is the real, hard factual evidence? It's not hard to understand - is it? But please, don't insult my intelligence by saying I've got problems if I need evidence, or because there's a universe there must be a god, or it's faith, or it's up to me to prove the is no god etc etc. I'm happy to believe if anybody can prove there is a god. |
|
By:
im agnostic. but i think believers have more important things on theit minds instead of trying to convert those that dont. it really gets to you that more intelligent people can believe in such a thing. why not let them be. if it bothers you that much maybe speak to a psychiatrist? this is not healthy at all...why cant you just leave them be even if they are nutjobs? if it makes them happy what harm is it. seriously dude, i think you need to find a hobby instead of asking questions that cannot be answered
|
|
By:
The problem for me is that the nutjobs still have a lot of influence in the running of the country and, indeed, the world.
Any incident occurs the media line up some self-appointed clergy person for a sound bite. Faith schools should have no place in this country. The Queen is the head of the Church. If you aren't a Christian or say you are there is no way into the White House. What would happen if Prince William declared himself an atheist? !! |
|
By:
senyatta,
you've confirmed what I was saying ... resorting to insults. |
|
By:
Believers are always trying to convert others Senyatta. Some go from door to door especially the Mormons and the JWs. Others stand in the street with placards handing out leaflets. Some sponsor TV channels and yet others become missionaries peddling their false ideas in third world countries.
Mememe has every right to ask the question as philosophers have been doing for millennia.It is disingenuous of you to question his mental health for doing so. |
|
By:
thanks Foinavon ...
as Jack Hacksaw posted just below, the problem is that the believers (or those that say they believe) are indeed running the country/world - christian, muslim no different. |
|
By:
how am i insulting? and im not a believer or non believer...i dont know and i will never act like i do know. im not that arrogant. i respect everyone..religious or not. the problem is guys like you who ask a question knowing there can be no answer...the question has been asked a million times and never answered. a simple google search will find you better places where this is discussed with better debates and more detail. what on earth were you expecting to find in a gambling forum for goodness sake
|
|
By:
its up to the non believers to take charge then and earn those occupations is it not?the believers must be doing something right to be in power are they not? maybe the non believers should focus on trying to get into power instead of moaning about this and that? how else will things change if thats all you do?
|
|
By:
Quite correct, of course.
I intend to stand for King at the next elections and put my Mrs up for Pope. |
|
By:
foinavon...who cares if they try to convert us? either dont answer the door or do what i do and tell them to go phock themselves. they never come back. its no different to when theres changes of law. you will always have two sides arguing with the others and trying to gain the upperhand. i questioned his mental side because he seems obsessed with the issue like i said already there is no answer so just move on let the whack jobs worship who they want and ignore any preaching they do. instead of complaining about this president is religious why not go out and try to replace him with a non religious person. simples really.
|
|
By:
I can defend my position quite easily against the itinerant godsters Senyatta, I've had loads of practice. Unfortunately many can't and some get fleeced. I posted my position on why religion is bad for us much earlier on this thread. There are lots of other reasons beside those mentioned but best to keep things short.
|
|
By:
trading standards would take a company to account if they cant back up on their promotions or assertions
there should also be the same constraints on people who use threats based on no evidence |
|
By:
senyatta,
best to ignore this thread as it's clearly exercising you. We have a long tradition on the forum ... post what you like. If other forumites are interested they will join in - pro or con - if it's contentious. If other forumites are not bothered about the topic, then thread ends. Do you see? |