It could simply be that "God" does nto exist.

All we are left with are a series of known and unknown things.

Considering the vastness of our universe I would say that with all mankind has accomplished we are not even at a mere .01% of acquiring all the knowledge we can.

As the Op has stated; Over the course of our history science has replced the need for gods or god. I don't believe it is possible for a single race (human or other) to know the full 100% of things to know in the universe. Therefore there will always be a god, regardless of his actual existence or inexistence.

cheers

EDIT: I do not wish to offend anyone with the following statement, this is afterall what people consider a touchy subject (and thsi is somewhat the point of my next argument). I believe that a fully atheist society with no concept or willingness to consider god or gods, would have an easier time acquiring further knowledge. Practising a religion has never brought about scientific advancements.

Our reason as well as the argument from design and conscience can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God.

I tend to agree.

Science deals with truth regarding natural things going no further back in the process of nature than matter and motion, not to the Maker of them, who, being God, belongs intellectually to the theological sphere of science. Yet to God alone can scientists attribute the mysteries of the atom which were considered not long ago to be the smallest indivisible unit of elements, and now have given way to 2 smaller particles, protons and electrons, "universes" of electro magnetic energy that have revolutionized the concept of "energy" and "force". The result is that the scientific world is face to face with more of God's mysteries in nature than it has ever been confronted with before. Same deal with the irreducable complexity of the simple cell.

This is sheer folly. True science hasn't replaced or contradicted God at all since Almighty God is the source of all knowledge and consequently of science.   

Science has though over the past years come under the bondage of atheism which has really prevented its further development.

First, what science discovers is what is alread existent by the will of God. If science denied belief in God rest assured that the world's greatest scientists would have never professed their belief in God. Here is a list of some distinguished Catholic scientists....

Astronomy....

Copernicus, Galileo, Gassini, Secchi, Piazzi, Leverrier, Scheiner, Temple,

Geology....

Steno, Halley, De Lapparent, De Beaumont, Cuvier,

Electricity....

Galvini, Volta, Ampere, Henry Antoine, Ceasar Antoine, Branley, Delaney

Biology....

Schwann, Muller, Vesalius, Morganni, Lamarack, Pasteur, Laenned, Malpighi, Fortunato, Mendel, Latreilli, and Fabre.

Or it could simply be that "God" does exist. Thus the debate, as we have no way to actually prove that God does or does not exist. As I stated earlier, the basis of science is the phrase "I don't know" and anyone who claims pure knowledge one way or the other is a liar.

People can claim belief one way or the other and be honest in their belief, but the moment they claim to "know" there is or isn't they move from being honest to being a liar.

Personally, I believe the universe was created by a force outside of our physical plane of existence, but which we have little ability to understand, and all religions strive to understand and fail miserably, I belive they all have a little bit right but all are wrong for the most part. Many call this "God" or "a God", or whatever.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if it was, in the end, that it was the Hare Knrishnas that had it right?

*LOL* Who got almost cruzified by their very own catholic church for postulating a heliocentric system. Good job!

Also, answer me this lulapilgrim:

If "god" is so almighty n stuff, why does he need our worship? Why does he need his followers to make others believe in him by force? Why do or at least DID his followers kill in his name when one of his commandments ist "Thou shalt not kill"? To be honest all this reminds me a lot of the Ori in the Stargate series. Without worship they're utterly powerless.


Also the classic question is this:

If he is an almighty creator, can he create a stone that is so heavy that even HE cannot lift it?

Oh, and btw.: Don't we all know that the beginning of all things was actually the Horrendous Space Kablooie?

So the reason YOU BELIEVE is because you believe in one principle and are ignorant of other possibilities?

"Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough." -- Moshe Wilkinson

Well, let'ts hope that we meet some advanced alien race sometime soon. This would instantaniously disprove the assertion that man is the epitome of "God"'s creation.

Furthermore it would disprove his own almightyness. Because if "God" created man according to his picture and to be the epitome of creation as is written, and suddenly a more advanced race shows up, which obviously would NOT have been created by him, there must be someone-/thing that created THIS race. And to do so this someone/-thing must be more advanced (read: mightier) than "God", right?

I guess this is also one of the reasons why conspiracy theorists believe the US gov would never admit that they found alien bodies in Roswell.

There is a reason why this question is classic and there is a reason why during most debates that question is not used.

This question is a classic straw man agrument. First, let's look at the premise of the question for there is a fallacy there.  While it is true that G-D can do anything that is consistent with HIS nature, it is absurd to suggest that he can do everything.  WHAT!  If can't do everything then HE's no longer G-D!  Just hold on a second.  G-D can't lie (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus  1:1-2); HE cannot be tempted (James 1:13); and HE cannot cease to exist (Psalm 102:25-27)

Furthermore, just as it is impossible to make a one-sided triangle/a square circle, so it is impossible to make a rock too heavy to be moved.  What an all-powerful G-D can create he can obviously move (and destroy).  G-D can do everything that is logically possible.

If you're going to throw a question out like that then tell me what purple taste/smells like? It does not show that G-D has a limit to HIS power which means HE does not possess infinite power.  What this does mean is whatever HE created is under HIS juirisdiction under HIS control, it can never have equality.

To your first sentence: Just because something is true one way DOES NOT MEAN the inverse has to be true (it is a logical fallacy).  I won't answer the question that you directed to lula BUT I will say that it is not translationally accurate when kill is used for it should be murder.  There is a difference between killing and murdering.

English is a functional language.  What I mean by this is that people only use between 4,000 to 8,000 words and on average they only know about 6,000 words.  Now, that is out of a total of over 900,000 words so about a million words and as you can see we use a very small percentage ( actually .9% yes it is smaller than 1%).  When translating from one language to another language meanings can get lost (yet at times a word may take on a very water down meaning of another word ex. Shalom is used as a greeting/Hi which is its very water down meaning of that word which means made whole, peace, completeness, ect ect and in english we don't use a word that encompasses the complete meaning of shalom YET it does mean Hi/Goodbye). 

When you translate a language to English (especially ancient languages) it gets very messy because again English is a functional language.

A better question would be what is truth? Something isn't true (Christianity for example) because it works (pragmatism); it is not true because it feels right (subjectivism); it is not true because it is "my truth" (relativism). As Solzhenitsyn stated "One word of truth outweighs the entire world." Truth is very important to find.  Furthermore, truth corresponds to reality.  As such, truth does not yield to the size and strength of the latest lobby group.  Nor is truth merely a matter of preference or opinion.  Rather truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it.

Truth is an aspect of the nature of G-D himself

Truth is an aspect of the nature of G-D HIMself.

Somebody put a while back that Mormons are Protestants and not Catholic.

Actually Mormons ARE NOT Protestants.  I would NOT group Mormons with Catholic nor would I group them with Protestants.  I would be very hesitant to put Mormons into even the same category as Christianity.  For they have beliefs which are not alined with Christianity.

The first sentence isn't mine. It's me quoting lula. So not I committed this logical fallacy - lula did.

And as for nitpicking concerning kill and murder:

It's both technically speaking taking another person's life. And afaik the bible says that it's only up to "God" himself to take a life.

And who actually cares whether it says kill or murder? The Inquisition, the Conquestadores, the Crusaders, even Missionaries and other religous fanatics of the catholic church have either taken thousands of lifes or at least ordered it (e.g. various popes). And maybe except for the fallen during war the Crusaders waged it was ALL murder - not just killing!

Bull! But please do keep on your circular "reasoning"...

People_Party,

You have brought forward an _excellent_ response to the old creating a rock heavier than He can move meme. Two other answers from theology are that G-d can indeed create such a stone (and can also lie) but that binary (or any) logic does not apply to the Creator, and that the rock too heave to be moved is free will, an aspect of humanity G-d created and now cannot influence directly.

I agree with your statements about English and translations. Shalom is not just "peace", it is instead a state of completeness. Leshalem, lehashlim come to mind...

As for Mormons, they are obviously Christians, as they believe in Jesus "Christ" being the Messiah. What they are not is part of today's usual Christianity. Mormons are non-Trinitarians, and nominal Christianity is Trinitarian. They are not Protestants or Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) because their church is a re-founded church, not a split from the existing one church.

(Of course some Protestant Churches are also re-founded churches but are based on the concepts of the Protestant Churches that used to be Catholic.)

And stealing and buying is both technically speaking taking another's property. The difference is perhaps academic.

(And no, the Bible does not say that it is only up to G-d Himself to take a life.)

I agree. But nevertheless there is a difference between murder and killing which the Bible recognises. And that's a good thing considering how many lives are lost due to accidents. Should we punish those responsible for accidental deaths as if they committed murder?

First, its not 'nitpicking'.  If you look at websters it shows there is a difference between murdering and killing. 

Your statement here is true. Yet so have Communist, Buddhist, Hindis, Athetist, Greek/Romans (both of those were polytheistic), Nazis, Vikings, ect ect ect. 

Also just because the parts do something does not mean it represents the whole (and doesn't mean its not true)

As for your claim of circular reasoning.  I'm not sure what place you are referring to.  I will say this: If I wanted to prove that the President of the United States lives in the White House.  How would I go about that?  I could go on websites, history books, ect ect to show that the President lives in the White House. 

Now, it would be easier if I just went to the source.  The source being the White House and knocked on the door.  Now, the President will come and say that he lives here.

Good point, Leauki!  I"ll have to remember that "And stealing and buying is both technically speaking taking another's property. The difference is perhaps academic."  Semantics is what I think you meant.   It is a good point but you have to be careful with that one because it could lead to a slippery slope.  I am going to remember that one though.

Thank you for the compliment!  I appreciate it.  BTW, did you get my private messages? I'm never sure if people got them or what.  With email I also mark it so it will notify me if the person received the message or not. 

If you know another language, which talking to you Leauki I think you know several, translation is very difficult.  Even if you have mastered several languages.

As for the Mormon/Christian discussion its really neither here nor there pertaining to the current discussion.  I will say this about Mormons and their beliefs.  They believe before G-D became G-D he was a man. Section Six 1843-44 p345: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

Its a little more then half way down or you can just use the find feature of firefox.

No, I meant "academic" as in "of no practical relevance". I was being sarcastic but the point is the same.