G'day Tim,

Belief in God is a faith. When I was 16 I had a friend who used maths to prove that God did not exist. It was extremely good maths and there wasn't anyone where we were at the time, and we were in a college with some very very good minds, that could dispute his maths. Was he right or was he just extremely good at maths?

Actually I think Mr Morgan, underestimated the number of graduates, PhDs and teachers here but that doesn't make your argument less likely to be correct. Funnily enough most of the greatest discoveries were made by people in their teens or early twenties. Einstein didn't do anything except some refinement on his basic ideas and some truly silly ideas after the age of 30. Experience isn't everything but it does mean you can often argue better, although not necessarily more politely. Actually age sometimes means that you have far less tolerance for ideas seen many times before.

How about this thought to let you ponder for a while. If you require proof that God exists then, by definition you lack faith in God. If you use your faith in God's existence in an attempt to prove his or her or its existence then you are starting from a position of extreme bias that may prevent you from ever agreeing that your "proofs" are not infallible. So which is it Tim? Do you have no faith in God and you therefore must require proof? Or do you have faith in God and therefore should require no proof?

I do hope you do learn on this website, even in this discussion where the topic is faith based. If you hold the position that God does not exist then really that is a faith in itself. Faith is after all a belief in the absence of absolute proof for that belief. The weight of evidence may or may not be with you in your belief but its still a belief in the end, not an absolute.

The Big Bang is a theory and one that does not fit all the current observations of this universe. It does fit a great deal of them so it is as good as science can get currently until something better comes along. I don't think arguing about the Big Bang really proves God because it is just a theory to explain the observations of the universe as we currently understand it. Since we don't understand all of it, the bit we don't understand, no matter how small provides a gap that anyone can exploit to argue God's existence or lack thereof, imho.

I personally do not accept that you can prove the existence of God by starting with the premises that he does not exist and because you cannot prove that, hey presto, he must exist. But others have already pointed this out.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness