Religious Debate

[DeletedUser]

I'll believe when there are actual facts that go along with the existance of God.

As for know, science wins with their facts.

The funny thing about that is that the Church says that they need no empirical evidence to prove the existence of god.

The joke is that if there was empirical evidence (facts) found that proved God's existence, the Church would jump on it like a pack of hyenas (that they are).

 

[DeletedUser]

The funny thing about facts is that they require testable observations. Science seeks to explain the NATURAL world. The funny thing about God is that he is neither testable or directly observable, meaning that he falls outside the rhelm of science and reason. I am about to graduate with a college science degree, and I still believe in God. They just don't overlap. They interact (in my views), but you can't test or observe God. And that places him outside of science. There isn't direct evidence to "prove" God exists because the supernatural and science do not live in the same postal code.

 

[DeletedUser]

Believing in god, is called BELIEVING.. because you have to believe.

It's your choise wheter to believe it or not..

If there were facts, it wouldn't be your decission, and it wouldn't be called BELIEVING..


I mean.. you don't say: I believe humans exist.. since that's just a fact