Originally Posted by anime Freak
But ther are so many things tha science cannot explain! and religion can explain those things
You have a point there but it comes down to how much of an explanation. In certain religions, one can claim "[name of deity] did it!", which explains why the event happened but in science, the detail can go one step further and say how it happened in a way that's on the same plane as humans. Secondly, the explanation religion provides is the same blanket one over and over and over, "the deity did it because it's a great deity". It's a superficial, vague, empty and lacking detail. When it comes to evidence of it, then that takes a whole other turn in which it becomes a chaotic mess, usually with the end result being there's no evidence.
Originally Posted by SuperShadows
I feel like arguing about religion with someone. Any takers? I'll start: There is no proof of a God or any other higher being. Your turn.
Since you want to debate, I'll jump in. Your argument is rejected for several reasons. First, you have not defined what a religion is. Some say it needs a deity, some say it doesn't. Without defining it, your argument is based on a concept without a definition and one that nobody (other than yourself) can address.
Second, what sort of "proof" is necessary? Humans cannot show anything is 100% true/false due to insufficient knowledge, so we must suffice for a diminished proof. What is that to you?
Third, what is your argument(s)? You have only provided a conclusion with no premise and no argument. It's an unfounded, flimsy statement. With no argument, I don't know why or how you have reached your conclusion and so even if I wanted to support your claim, I cannot because we may differ on the arguments used to reach said claim. If you stated it in previous posts, I'm not going to go on a scavenger hunt to find your argument(s) amongst the numerous other posts.
Fourth, I presume you agree with me in that we cannot use any of our 7 main bodily senses to sense a theistic being, so how can we provide proof for or against? If we turn to holy texts for certain beliefs, there's immense ambiguity and uncertainty as to what they mean and how they should be practiced.
Lastly, why is significant proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt needed? If the belief comforts people, then why do we need to have them provide proof? What does it matter? Besides, suppose the above 4 problems are all addressed, what is the implication or usage of the outcome of the argument? If it's concluded that there are gods, so what, people believed in the past anyways but if it's concluded there are no gods, so what, that was continuously said and people still believed?