that's basically just saying that there was nothing before the universe, not that it has always existed. If the universe has always existed then time would have to have exited forever, and as Philo-sofa was saying apparently time began at a specific point..

man what a fucking stupid thing to argue about.

Yeah I am interested in science, but I'm not so interested in that I go out of my way to learn everything about it, life is short so what's the point in wasting my life learning everything about science when ultimately it would be pointless to do so? there are more important things in life. I personally find spirituality to be more important than science.

not one bit. science will always endevour to learn new things.

we arnt bias towards one side.

Who's we? you're not a scientist, hell you weren't even aware that our universe hasn't existed forever :/

Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance.

Unlike religion which merely does the opposite. No matter what the evidence it will always stay the same, usually prefering to move backwards rather than forwards

You still don't fucking get it do you, it's not just 'Science VS Religion', there's more to it than that, open your fucking mind instead of being stuck in your narrow little perspectives just because you dislike the ideas of religions

I respect science of course and find it immensely interesting, and yes I know science is constantly advancing, but there are just some things that science cannot and will not ever be able to explain, get fucking used to it.

and one last time: I'M NOT RELIGIOUS. So your preaching about religions is falling on deaf ears.

Theologians invented god, as it was the only answer to life the universe and everything that they could muster.

You can't invent something that might already exist... they would have invented their own ideas and beliefs about God, I think is what you mean..

good luck trying to maintain that thought,  while science discover more about the universe almost daily.

I'm sticking with the progressive rather than the stuck in dark ages thinking, at least striving for an answer has value, as opposed to resigning yourself to the idea you will never know.

Science will never know or have all the answers either, so where does that leave you?

What the fuck.... you're arguing with a wiki article :/

I already told you, I'm not really interested in reading what you have to say anymore. A) I can't understand half of what you're saying B) Your beliefs conflict with my beliefs, and for that reason I find it to be an ultimately pointless discussion.

also, I only just got the play-of-words of your nickname

well its not religions the problem its the people the read the book and interprit it wrong and start wars over it, religion makes more trubble than its worth, it even pits to brothers agnest each other to the point thay whant to kill each other.

religion is bad any and all religions are bad because of people. end of argument i win

I agree with you that religion causes lots of problems in society, but there are also many good things about religion.

But the thing is; it's not as simple as just 'religion VS science', there's a lot more to it. Which is why, as $lim shot pointed out, the title of this thread is actually pretty stupid.

PS. I'm not religious at all, but I believe there is a high possibility of the existence of (a) God.

Spliff, if everything is too complex and perfect to be a natural process attributed to chance, and therefore must be the work of a designer. The designer (god) must be far more complex again, how do you explain the existence of god, god must have been created by something according to your logic.

I'm sick of trying to explain it tbh, so I'll just quote some paragraphs from a wiki article:

Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1]

So basically, the existence of God is infinite. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I know, just the concept of inifinity alone is difficult to comprehend. It doesn't need to have been created by something, because it is the necessary being that holds the reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being

I'm sure a philosopher or something could no doubt explain it better than I can

- The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.

- The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.

- The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[14]

- The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.

- Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.

- The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

- The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

- The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

- Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

A "fact" in science is an observation.    

Well that's fucking retarded

How can you be CERTAIN  that's how it happened if it is JUST A THEORY? That makes no sense.

Were you there when it happened? Are you a scientist?

this shit is boring now. I'm done.

Given that I have taken the time at work to read what you wrote and that I took the time to respond to your invitation to reply, it might be the decent thing to do to read the reply.

I will, if I can be bothered, I'm just fed up with the attitude of people in this thread already and don't see any more need for me to be involved in this thread if I am just going to be a target for immature ridicule

At least the part about the first few seconds of the universe anyways - it's fascinating stuff!

Like you said, it's nothing more than a theory, whereas at first you were claiming as if you knew it was fact.

Actually, you should test your mind with these ideas and see what you come up with, rather than dismissing them out of hand

I already have, and have come to the conclusion that it's just an argument that ignorant people like you use to try and ridicule people who believe in a God. It's pathetic, underhanded and proves nothing but how uneducated you are.

Spliff, you're quite right when you say I am the Homo but please use it correctly: there is a capital "H", The ignorance in your comments just makes everything you say laughable!

Yes, I am Homo sapiens sapiens, I have a long lineage through various species of Homo and traceable back beyond the first chordate, far beyond the anomalies of the Burgess Shale and into the Stromatoporoids as can be seen, even today, in places such as Shark Bay. Beyond that, well, there is the potential for extraterrestrial seedings via cometary impacts etc, but nothing points towards a creator in the divine sense.

I'm well aware that I'm a Homo sapien, you see it's this thing that some people call a 'joke'...

Ahhh, I knew this kind of stupidity could not evolve on its own. You were obviously created.

what makes me stupid? Because I don't think the universe and everything came about due to purely coincidental chance? Yeah man, I must be stupid. You've barely even contributed anything to the recent arguments, so I would hazard a guess that is in fact you who are stupid.

You are Genus Homo too

so where did god come from?

Why the fuck are you still asking questions that i've already explained to you

it is pointless asking why 'God' did what it did, we cannot fathom or comprehend it's reasons for the universe to exist

you're a Genus Homo


so where did we and the animals come from? Cells? Where did those cells come from? Why did they appear on Earth? Where did the universe come from? Why did the universe appear? What caused it? What is time, when did it begin? How and why? Why is there life? Why do we have consciousness?