»Is there a god in our world?«

This type of church is obviously another type of religious expression. It must appeal to some people or it wouldn't exist, but I can't see it being very popular. Religious communities really ought to be supportive not damning.

I think God would be referred to as He and She only when referring to a particular one. In Christianity God is referred to as "the father" so it makes sense to say He. If we are referring to ANY god I think it is not unreasonable to say "It".

It must be pointed out that patriotism is a kind of religion and is used just as dogmatically. I don't like pointing fingers like this but.... look at George Bush. Dogmatic patriotism versus dogmatic religion seems like a seriously nasty conflict and I hope it doesn't get out of control.

One of my friends said this: "The most frightening thing is that Bush might NOT be an idiot."

shailesh... if you want to hear my take on free-will/fate idea, go here and read the last post...

So, humans came from...god, so did all animals? And dogs just appeared too? Wolves what? Argh.

Well, at least you read the title, good start. Keep going, read the evidence from the fossil record, what the scientific method means, and then get back to me.

This is pointless, and I'm going to try my hardest to ignore any more evolution debate. If you really thought the world was heading in the wrong direction and macroevolution is phony, read all the literature, become a biologist and debate biologists. If all you can do is assert that macroevolution holds no evidence without actively researching it, you're not worth my time. I'll put my money on the actual scientists, not you arm-chair ones, thank you.

Quote:

You asked me earlier why I even attempt to convert people. Well, because people cannot accept the truth unless they have heard it. The question should be, why do you come on here to "convert" others? I don't think you do. I think you argue in order to convince yourself of your own position. Atheists NEED to believe there is no God, in order that they may be able to accept themselves as they are. They realize that they are imperfect, so if there is a perfect God, they know they will be held accountable for their actions. Therefore, they refuse to believe it.

This is hilarious, you're the first theist to claim that atheists NEED to not believe in a god. To give you some background, I was born a catholic and had been so for most of my life, until I started to realize that the bible seemed more a collection of myths no less valid in its craziness than the greek myths. I didn't NEED to not believe in god, in fact, it would've been so much easier on for me to just ignore my doubts and go along with the church.

My atheism depends on evidence. I don't need it by any means. In fact, it would be fantastic if your god would show himself to everyone in a really loud voice or something, so we could end this debate and I could focus on getting into heaven, however that isn't the case. And until that happens, its intellectually dishonest to believe in god.

I don't come here to convert others, I came here for good discussion, and a few times its happened. Stinkz, the more you talk of your inwardly focused "truth" in an unprovable god, the more I feel confident in my atheism.

As a side note, how do you know your god gives a damn about your actions? Because you have a hunch of what right or wrong means? But, if god created me, then wouldn't he acknowledge my imperfectness and how it led me 'astray', how could you god ever punish ANYONE and claim them to be created imperfect in his name, and be anything close to understanding and benevolent? It can't.

I've forgotten to explain why its hilarious: because I feel that theists, given unexplained phenoma, emotional ties to their community/family/friends, and a general awe at the possibility of something greater than themselves, sacrifice their reason to fill this emotional hole.

Quote:

Read the New Testament and tell me if you think its writers were making it up, or actually believed what they were saying.

Some schizophrenic persons actually believe their hallucinations. So, I don't find it hard to believe if the people writing the bible actually believed the people in it.

Fatpie42 wrote:

Does wicca involve: A combination of Gods (like in Roman mythology) or a single God which all other gods comprise (like in Hinduism)?

Basically it's a belief in The Goddess and The God, two composite parts of the divine. The Goddess represents the "feminine" principle and The God represents the "masculine" aspect. Each god or goddess from individual mythologies is considered to be versions or "aspects" of these.

Quote:

A belief about the beginning of the world/time?

There is no consistent belief about this, nor is it seen as necessary.

Quote:

An afterlife? of what nature?

Once again there is no consisent belief about this life is considered to be a great cycle, with smaller cycles within, so it would also seem reasonable that each life is part of a greater cycle. Some wiccans believe in a "summerland" where the spirit goes between lives, but this is not universal.

Quote:

A purpose to the universe or after it ends? what will happen to the universe in the best/worst circumstances?

Not relevant. Neo-pagan beliefs tend to centre around "how" to live rather than "why".

I consider myself to be neo-pagan rather than wiccan. Much of my religious framework comes from wicca, but much also comes from the ancient cult of Cybele and Attis (Greco-Roman based, Cybele is another name for Rhea, Mother of the Gods).

The thing to realise about Wicca, is that it is a "revival" rather than a recreation of ancient pagan beliefs. As such it recasts earlier beliefs into a coherant whole. The religious festivals (Beltaine, Spring Equinox, Sahmain/Halloween, et cetera) mostly come from Celtic beliefs, but other parts from a mixture of Masonic/Theosophical/Hindu/OTO ideas and practices (with Alaistair Crowley infuencing things a lot).

I have a better background at members.tgworld.org... and if you care to explore my beliefs further, there's always hunter.apana.org.au....

kazuji wrote:

So, humans came from...god, so did all animals? And dogs just appeared too? Wolves what? Argh.

Are you kidding me? Is this supposed to be an argument? What are you getting frustrated over?

kazuji wrote:

Well, at least you read the title, good start. Keep going,

there you go kazuji, keep relying on that site.

kazuji wrote:

read the evidence from the fossil record, what the scientific method means, and then get back to me.

Unlike you, I do not need some joe-blow website to tell me what the scientific method means.

In dealing with the fossil record, explain that no intermediate species have been found. Not one. Go ahead.

That is not even the half of it. How do we know how old a rock layer is? Thats easy. Because of the fossils it contains. How do we know how old the fossils are? Thats easy. Because of the layer of rock they are in.

There's only one reason macroevolution has become so mainstream. It is because of the reaction against organized religion.

kazuji wrote:

I'll put my money on the actual scientists, not you arm-chair ones, thank you.

Go ahead, do so. You will be surprised. Go up and ask whatever scientist you look up to and ask him if he really truly believes macroevolution occurs. If you can reject everything I say just by claiming that I am not knowledgable on the subject, then I'm sorry, theres not much I can do for you.

Oh and by the way, I'm not leaning on "arm-chair" scientists like you claim. I have heard evolutionary propaganda all my life from Biology professors, scientists, and such. Only, instead of writing everything they say down, verbatim... I listen to them. I notice that when they have nothing more to say about the formation of the first cell than that amino acids, existing in a soup, formed DNA, that that explanation is a bit sketchy. I notice that, when reading a Biology textbook, that several chapters exist on microevolution, and that macroevolution is explained away in a following paragraph, there must not be too much solid, informational support.

kazuji wrote:

Stinkz, the more you talk of your inwardly focused "truth" in an unprovable god, the more I feel confident in my atheism.

Good! You have accomplished your goal.

kazuji wrote:

As a side note, how do you know your god gives a damn about your actions? Because you have a hunch of what right or wrong means? But, if god created me, then wouldn't he acknowledge my imperfectness and how it led me 'astray', how could you god ever punish ANYONE and claim them to be created imperfect in his name, and be anything close to understanding and benevolent? It can't.

There you go, another great rationalization. If you can't help that you do wrong, why should you be punished for it? Umm... because you do. All people CHOOSE to do evil daily. This evil is easily seen in the world around us. However, it takes wisdom to see it within oneself. You and I are as much a part of the problem as any. Luckily, this God, whom you hate so much, offers us forgiveness if only we put aside our pride and ask.

kazuji wrote:

I've forgotten to explain why its hilarious: because I feel that theists, given unexplained phenoma, emotional ties to their community/family/friends, and a general awe at the possibility of something greater than themselves, sacrifice their reason to fill this emotional hole.

Why would we have an emotional hole, which could only be filled by a faith in God? What evolutionary reason would there be for this hole?

Even if it did require a sacrifice of reason to believe, is human reason so great a sacrifice? We tend to forget, in our pridefulness, how extremely limited we are. Are we ever going to reason our way to a full knowledge of right and wrong? Are we going to reason our way out of all war, and put an end to all corruption? No. Why? Because we are biased. We use our reason for our own selfish purposes. Therefore, when it comes to what we cannot explain, will believe anything that justifies what we do.

Of course there is a God and its good we all agree on that.Evolution or whtaever ppl call it is impossible.How could we have been created by coincidence?How could our world have perfect conditions for us to live in?The Universe is too vast to be all coincidence.
Anyone who has any doubts as to HOW God created the earth should read the book of Genesis which explains the six days of creation,and why god created the earth.And no the bible does not say he used the Big Bang as his way of doing it.He is God.
Why would he need millions of years to create the universe if he is omnipotent all knowing and all powerful?

The debate between kazuji and stinkz is hilarious.. Two clumps of dna are trying to convince each other that their point of view is "the right" point of view.. It will never happen. There can be no agreement.. Perhaps might you guys agree to disagree?

Stinkz, you spoke of determining the age of fossile. There are other ways of determine dna-age you know. Carbon-14 determines how old things are. And by rights if God created Adam and Eve and they fornicated and ate of forbidden fruits.. when did this happen? Did it happen in the Middle East? A perfect place for present day religious oppression (Palestine vs The Almighty God). Can we get "hard" evidence that there was a Garden of Eden? Or is that a metaphor told onto us by the holy Moses and read directly from the very tablets he brought down from his holy mountain? I find no evidence.. only a defense - a rejection of science. Much like the Jehova's Witnessess.. but THAT is a completely different lunacy.

Or maybe Christianity IS a myth like someone said. Zeus and his cohorts up on Mount Olympus.. Athena, Apollon and the rest. Are they real? That is/was a religion too. Are Tor, Oden and the Norse Gods of the Vikings real too? If so, where are the Titans and Atlas who is holding up the world? Religion is a convenient way to say: "I can't explain it, it must be God who did it" or "God works in mysterious ways". I'll be one of few who says: "Zeus is as much a real god as the Christian Father-God-type-figure."

I rest in peace now, since I know that Stinkz has been overwhelmed by my logic!

-:KnowMe:-

Grammaton Cleric wrote:

Of course there is a God and its good we all agree on that.Evolution or whtaever ppl call it is impossible.How could we have been created by coincidence?How could our world have perfect conditions for us to live in?The Universe is too vast to be all coincidence. Anyone who has any doubts as to HOW God created the earth should read the book of Genesis which explains the six days of creation,and why god created the earth.And no the bible does not say he used the Big Bang as his way of doing it.He is God. Why would he need millions of years to create the universe if he is omnipotent all knowing and all powerful?

This quote cements my disbelief. God created our world in six days and on the seventh day he rested? For the love of... self, come on! let there be light.. I figure that there were, lets say, ten old geebers down in Italy (shortly after the assassination of Julius Caesar) who were all suckin on some fairly powerful bongs/joints. They saw god, more or less at the same time, and wrote it down. The result is know as the Bibble. Then as years went by more geebers (because the bibble is a male product) tributed their share to the bibble. And now there can be no doubt as to what the bibble is. A collection of stories to tell/read by the firelight. Nice stories but stories are all they are, I think!
oh well. over and out-

-:KnowMe:-

First things first, I must say that your title.... brilliant!

KnowMe wrote:

There can be no agreement.. Perhaps might you guys agree to disagree?

But then we would be in agreement, which would contradict your first statement.

KnowMe wrote:

Carbon-14 determines how old things are.

Well the only thing the matter with this is the slight margin of error.... millions of years.

The problem with your response is that you see Christianity, not for what it is, but for what you make it to be. Read the New Testament. Read this "myth" and then come back and discuss it.

Or... don't. It is your choice. I can assume you won't since you have already "cemented" your disbelief.

In 100 years time the Lord of The Rings will be the new Bible! It is a more complex work than the existing Christian Bible and more convincing!

Knowme, its interesting to ask me and stinkz to agree to disagree, when we (myself and knowme) happen to speaking about the same side.. What, your own advice isn't good enough for you or something?

Anyways I think one of the fundamental problems with this argument, from my perspective, is that stinkz has a solid view of what 'truth' means, without any margin for a change in opinon if new evidence were to emerge that differs from his pre-concieved 'truth'.

Stinkz, this differs from what I try to be, (although I fail somtimes) which is skepticism about any new ideas unless they are backed by evidence from the scientific community. If there arises a group of reputable scientists that refute macroevolution, so be it, I will be extremely skeptical about it and eventually, if enough evidence surfaces I'll remove my support in it. But all you can do is refer to an intro. to biology class where the book's section on macroevolution is short. I gave you an immense section to study through!

I feel like you are never prepared to change a belief of yours if it disagrees with your pre-concieved faith worldview. That seemingly being the case, knowme is right and its futile to argue. Although while its futile to argue, its not futile to learn and exchange ideas, which hopefully has been beneficial to the both of us despite the hostility of the debate.
---

LauraS, after reading your description of neo-paganism and wicca it seems very similar to the 'god-exists-by-design' argument that some theists have used. Similar in that both claim the existence of a god/goddess seemingly through a inferrence of logic, rather than provable data. (Take a look at quantum mechanics to see how 'common sense' and logic is not prepared to deal with nature). Out of curiousity, (never met a well-spoken neo-pagan/wiccan besides you) why do you believe?

kazuji wrote:

Knowme, its interesting to ask me and stinkz to agree to disagree, when we (myself and knowme) happen to speaking about the same side.. What, your own advice isn't good enough for you or something?

Hehe.. Well, it is good enough for me. But you and mr Stinz are the ones who are in serious debate mode. I'm just playing sniper with my comments. Agreeing with you and laughing at Stinkz. He is too Christian to be bothered with. hehe "Read the New Testament"... I like the "old" God in the Old Testament.. he was very grumpy.. and people didn't like that God so someone (apparently drug users) wrote a new Testament. With the help of other powerful pot smoking dudes dressed in sandals and sheets.

All in all, I don't buy Christianity as a truth..-.. call me crazy!

Coming to this thread late so i'll just wade in

Maybe we should ask...did Jesus actually exist? was he really the son of God or some dude who was great at public speaking and he convinced everyone he was the massiah? Maybe he never existed and the Bible is a complete waste of time. Maybe he was just nuts but people fell for his ramblings. We are so good at unlocking the mysteries of the universe but Jesus remains an enigma as all we have as proof of his existance is a book. The Turrin shroud is proved real but not old enough to be Jesus. The Holy Grail never existed. If we find proof of the christ, we will find proof of God. Maybe that is the beauty of religeon, it comes from within us all and gives us the power to fight when we are at our lowest.


Just dont get me started on Holy wars....they suck!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I introduce to you a thing called FAITH. That's what you're all missing.

Faith:
1. The idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so.
2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it..
3. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

All religions are based on faith.
Even opposing religions are based on faith.
If faith can lead to false beliefs, what value can there be in faith?

PS - You want proof? Read the Bible. Do you doubt the history books you read in school? What's that? You don't? So why doubt the Bible then, it's been around longer than history books.

Quote:

Faith: 1. The idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so. 2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it.. 3. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Thank you, Meteo, for acknowleding your, and your ilk's, craziness.

Ok faith-based theists:

Bigfoot lives under my bed. Prove it you say? No, I won't, I don't even need to, because I have faith in the reality that is bigfoot. Just because I can't see him, or that its highly unlikely that he's there, doesn't mean he's not there, so I'm going to belive in it anyway.

If this sounds crazy to you, congratulations! You have a working brain.


PS, age doesn't determine validity! HELLO! If someone wrote a riveting story 5,000 years ago it doesn't mean that its true! C'mon guys, go to school or something.

Faith? if someone says to you jump out of a window and have 'faith' that you will land safely will you do it? didn't think so. The think with history is it has proof and many sources to base it on. what has the Bible got as fact in it about Jesus? even the Bible has been re-writen so many times i doubt it even resembles what it looked like when it was first cobbled together from different scriptures. I would never tell someone who believes in God that they are talking crap, it is their belief and i have no right to argue with it but i feel if we can unlock the sectrets within the Bible we can get closer to finding out if Jesus really existed and if he was who he said he was. Maybe whats scary is finding out he never lived....what would happen to the world if it was proved without a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist? world chaos? social collapse? what?

Ok I've fallen a bit behind here, but I have some answers to a few things which I hope will be helpful.

1) Surely atheists don't have to deny there is a God?

Actually they do. If you claim to be an atheist you are stating that you do not believe in any God(s).

There is a different category for people who wish to acknowledge the possibility of God(s) but feel that its (their) existence is uncertain and that arguing about it is unnecessary. These people are called AGNOSTIC. Much like the term atheism is a denial of theism which states that a God exists, agnosticism is a denial of 'gnosis' or religious knowledge/knowledge of God.

2) Though I personally regard the structure and complexity of the universe to be explained by a designer (whos nature is uncertain and up for debate). For me the only thing I require faith for is belief in the religion I have chosen. Belief in a God seems too obvious to me to require much faith.

However, some people feel that neither the possible need for a first cause to the universe nor the complexity of the structure of the universe is good enough reason to believe in a God and these people must appeal completely to faith for any of their beliefs.

However, there are pragmatic reasons for faith in God regardless of its justification. Pascal's wager states that the person who believes in Godwill gain the most benefit. This is apart from the fact that religion is often seen as personally comforting and rewarding anyway.

Pascal's Wager


Believe In God
Beliefs Are True - Go to heaven
Beliefs are False - Just die

Don't believe in God
Beliefs are True - Just die
Beliefs are False Go to hell

Clearly this doesn't take other religions into account, but it still shows that, no matter what, an atheist will come out least favourably.

3) Evolution is not a criticism of any religion. The koran (muslim religious text) claims that the world was created in 6 days, but I have never heard of muslim creationists. Jews share the old testament and I have never heard of non-christian jewish creationists. In fact many (if not most) Christians feel that creationism is not a reasonable approach at all. Taking religious truth as scientifically literal is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard.

4) The Bible has not been rewritten, the original texts have simply been better and better translated in order to ensure that believers are given as acurrate a gospel as possible. If we all still spoke ancient greek we would not have this problem with the new testament.

5) Laughing at people's faith is not good knowme!
Science is itself a kind of faith so I'm now going to laugh at that. (not because of any problem with evolution, but because I find quantum theory stupid and boring). It has been shown conclusively that scientific theories are not removed when there is a problem with them. Instead they are simply added to. Scientists in the past had a great many theories which were completely ridiculous, but were accepted by the people of the time. One view in the 16th century accepted by many intelligent scientists of the time was that ducks were produced by barnacles dropping from trees. The term "anatiferous" which refers to the production of ducks in this way is still in the dictionary.
Occaisionally someone will come up with a whole new way of looking at the world, such as the transition between newtonian and einsteinian physics. This does not mean that the new theory is any better though. The new theory is completely incomparable to the old. This means that technically creation science is no better or worse than evolution. It is simply a different world view which is incomparable. This means that which one you believe in is simply a matter of mob rule. Read Kuhn and Feyerabend for more on scientific revolutions (ie. how crap science is).

Fatpie42 wrote:

5) Laughing at people's faith is not good knowme! Science is itself a kind of faith so I'm now going to laugh at that. (not because of any problem with evolution, but because I find quantum theory stupid and boring). It has been shown conclusively that scientific theories are not removed when there is a problem with them. Instead they are simply added to. Scientists in the past had a great many theories which were completely ridiculous, but were accepted by the people of the time. One view in the 16th century accepted by many intelligent scientists of the time was that ducks were produced by barnacles dropping from trees. The term "anatiferous" which refers to the production of ducks in this way is still in the dictionary. Occaisionally someone will come up with a whole new way of looking at the world, such as the transition between newtonian and einsteinian physics. This does not mean that the new theory is any better though. The new theory is completely incomparable to the old. This means that technically creation science is no better or worse than evolution. It is simply a different world view which is incomparable. This means that which one you believe in is simply a matter of mob rule. Read Kuhn and Feyerabend for more on scientific revolutions (ie. how crap science is).

I'm not laughing at anyones faith. I am, however, laughing at the inert attempts from some posters who claims and tries to bestow any validity to the Bible. I have read some of it and found it nice reading. I don't however subscribe to the ideas found in the big book. Like Kasuji says:

kasuji wrote:

Bigfoot lives under my bed. Prove it you say? No, I won't, I don't even need to, because I have faith in the reality that is bigfoot. Just because I can't see him, or that its highly unlikely that he's there, doesn't mean he's not there, so I'm going to belive in it anyway.

I agree! Faith can be dangerous. I would step cautiously where faith is concerned. Suicide bomber are acting on pure faith that they will be rewarded for their sacrifice. Do you think they will come to heaven? Is the suicide bomber's god any different from the Christian god? If there is only one God then this God must be the same who tells the fanatics down in the middle east to blow them selves up. I can't take that seriously. God must be everybody's God.. there can't be several different gods.. not if Chrsitianity is the One True Faith..

Oh well. roast me and flame me.. I am sticking my head in the fire now.. but I'm tired too!

Later-

Maybe God DID want them to blow themselves up and they misinterpreted it and thought he meant with other people around?

(oooh controversial *hides*)

Fatpie42 wrote:

Maybe God DID want them to blow themselves up and they misinterpreted it and thought he meant with other people around? (oooh controversial *hides*)

Hahah LOL. You made me laugh hard just now.. thanks for that, we need to laugh!

What an ironic and cynical God that would be!

Knowme why don't you contribute to the debate a bit by establishing how we are supposed to know whether we have good or bad faith?

We have already stated that science requires a kind of faith and in fact people use faith all the time. They have faith that their friends are real friends, that their spouses won't cheat on them, that the books and teachers around them don't all lie, that their doctor won't give them a medicine that will kill them.

Even more often we will have even greater faith that the laws of physics will not change, that the sun will come up tomorrow, that other people have minds which relate to their speech and action.

If all faith is unjustified and dangerous then how would you suggest we deal with this. I've decided that because I have no faith in anything I am going to eat as much ice cream as I can before ice cream ceases to exist.

Quote:

Actually they do. If you claim to be an atheist you are stating that you do not believe in any God(s).

This is false, contemporary atheists, read ones at least define themselves as either strong or weak definition atheists.

Weak means that they believe that the all the theistic beliefs of the world make no sense, and hence aren't theists. Strong means that they believe there is no possibility of a god. I'm a weak-definition atheist.

Quote:

Pascal's wager states that the person who believes in Godwill gain the most benefit.

This implies that you know something about the nature of god, which you already claimed, you don't. If god wants people to believe in him, how in the world do you know that?

Quote:

Scientists in the past had a great many theories which were completely ridiculous, but were accepted by the people of the time.

Um, the scientific community wasn't very rigorous or respectable in the 16th century, lack of a scientific method, religion etc. So using it in an analogy is fallacious, as many 'scientists' back then were simply logisticians like the theists on this board.

Quote:

This means that technically creation science is no better or worse than evolution. It is simply a different world view which is incomparable. This means that which one you believe in is simply a matter of mob rule.

What? World view? I'm sorry, but contemporary science changes its mind given new evidence. To me, a world view based on evidence is MUCH better than one based on none.
----

Quote:

We have already stated that science requires a kind of faith and in fact people use faith all the time. They have faith that their friends are real friends, that their spouses won't cheat on them, that the books and teachers around them don't all lie, that their doctor won't give them a medicine that will kill them.

I think you equivocate a bit when you use the word 'faith' here. Faith in the existence of an currently unprovable thing is very different from faith that I will experience gravity everyday, or expect the love from a spouse i married. My point is that this kind of faith is not faith at all! Its an inferrence based on evidence. If lots of people started dying all over the place from medicine, would people still take it? No! It's a idea based on reasonable amounts of evidence.

(sorry for the long post, it had to be done )

Scribe wrote:

In 100 years time the Lord of The Rings will be the new Bible! It is a more complex work than the existing Christian Bible and more convincing!

ahhh... let us pray that this will be so!

1) It seems to me that both atheists deny the existence of a God
the strong one claims that god is impossible and the second simply that current arguments for god are unjustified.
Agnostics claim that whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to real life.

If you believe there is enough evidence for a God (regardless of his nature) then you are no longer an atheist.

2) Pascals wager is about whether to believe in Christianity or not. That is its major weakness. However, it does show that no matter what belief you have atheism will be the least fruitful. Belief in any God provides more rewards than atheism. I also pointed out that belief in a God often provides comfort and personal development so there are benefits in both this life and (if there is one) the next.

3) Science in the 16th century is different from science now?
Well actually there is little difference from the way it worked then than now except that they worked on different assumptions. To say that modern scientists will give up their theories the moment they find evidence to the contrary is rubbish.

No one doubts that things fall when they drop them. If you can find any society that ever believed that when they drop things they will float in the air I would be very impressed. Science does not state what it sees it simply finds theories to explain it. Gravity is not proven but it has enough evidence that we can consider it justified.

This is why creationists feel justified in using their theories. They simply have a different explanation for phenomena to most scientists. Since neither the theory of the big bang nor creationism can be proved to be absolute truth it is a difficult debate to win. I personally think the theory of the big bang is a better solution but that is simply a matter of choice.

Read Feyerabend's "Against Method". Perhaps a better philosophy of science book for a more rounded view is Ian Hacking's collection of essays "Scientific Revolutions" (Oxford University Press 1981)

4) As I was saying gravity is not known from anything other than results according to your view and we already knew the results existed. The theory of gravity is explaining WHY things fall to the ground.

If a doctor gives a medicine to someone and they die anyway then I doubt you'd presume it was the doctor's fault. You'd be more likely to say that it was an unfortunate instance where there was nothing he/she could do. You'd be unlikely to go "right! from now on i'm going to a witch doctor" or "Maybe I should look for someone who practices eastern traditional medincine" because you have too muchh faith in science for that (and besides it would be far too much effort anyway).

Many people feel that they have personal proof for their religion just like you may feel you have personal proof of love from your spouse. It is called religious experience. People feel that they can feel God's presence in their life. This is difficult to convey to someone who has never felt religious faith strongly. This is for the same reason that some people may have difficulty believing in love if they have had bad luck with relationships.

I don't think you should say that God is real, but simply that belief in God is justified. It is often the best explanation available and people who believe in God are not morons - they know that parts of their belief must be based on faith. In some ways this makes them more reliable than those who claim that their scientific beliefs are infallible.