Let me quote an other scientist, F. Gauss , one of the greatest mathematician ever
He said

" Phylosphers either tell trivialities or absurdities "

If you take a breath , you can see that he was absolutely right
Claiming that God must exist simply because someone must have created the universe it is a childish claim
Dont let me misunderstood, I dont mean it is a false claim I mean it is a trivial claim
Same as claiming that the sun is orbiting about the earth or the moon about the earth
The former claim is false the latter is true , both are trivial claims

Phylospher can try to look smart using a sophisticated terminology
Ok the result is that they simply turn a triviality into an absurdity

The truth is that you must stick to the hard facts whereever they lead you to

Or you should rely on your 'faith' and resist attempting to justify it with pseudo-science.
And what if you have an hypothesis, but no facts to support it? Is it false because you have no evidence?


"People of Faith" are by their nature "believers".
"People of Science" are by their nature "understanders".
You will never make a "believer" understand, unless he already believes.
You will never make an "understander" believe, unless he can understand.
Belief requires faith, and understanding requires logic and/or facts.
So I dont "believe" that these two type of perception will ever come to an "understanding".


I dont see any justification for this sentiment at all.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - probably from the bible I think.
I think this is an excellent moral, whether there is or isnt a god. Why MUST god exist to this moral to be good?
Unless morals are just rules you are scared of breaking, or god will punish you eventually.
I do not believe this is what morals are, its just how the "church" tries to use them.
Morals are SELF-imposed rules to strive TOWARDS tomake ourselves better than animals.


"Undetectable" means we have not YET designed a tool to see him with. Bacteria was still a killer before microscopes.
"Invisible" only means we cannot SEE him. You cant see wind, but it can still blow your house down.
"Outside the realm of reality" is too ambiguous to work with. Has different meanings to different people.
"No god at all" would be different because ... err ... ummm ... just different OK! Use your imagination.

Do you think your answer is an argument at all, have you even unterstood the question ? I should use my imagination well what does that mean just imagine something doesn't make it true. As I wrote early what matters is not what sounds plausible but only what is supported by hard evidence.

i want to know WHY do you want there to be a god?
WHY?

if there is a god, everything gets worse than it is in an instant...

WHY do you want eternal live or salvation? WHY? woudlnt it mak live pretty much obsolete? you sure you dont get bored in an eternity?
WHY?

i rather live by MY rules, i set them for MY, to guide ME and only ME through MY life...
true, i have some morals, but those dont come from god. they come from simple logic: leave me alone, i leave you alone. how can i assume somebody leaves me alone if i dont leave that person alone?
i dont have any doubts about my actions. i see it fit to take the life of the people that *I* think deserve it. if they deserve it or not is up to ME. that might not work in a governed state or morally relevant state BUT it works for ME. until now, i found alot of people who deserve death however i was unable to give them what they deserve because i cannot be everywhere.
but if i ever get the chance to kill, say, bin laden orsome of those religious fundamentalists that threaten MY life, be sure i wont hesitate. because i live by my laws alone. lucky me, most of my laws are pretty much the laws we have here in austria. i have a good life. not because i fear god, but because i enjoy what there is...

believing means not to know... i know...

If I there are no facts to support an hypothesis an hypopthesis remains an hypothesis
As simple as that

The " beleivers " try to justify their " belief " at any cost
If you go through the post in this forum you will find tons of examples




True but it is also a matter of education

If nowadays there are more " understanders " than " believers " it is thanks to the school

That's just a semantics issue. In reality a believer isn't all that different from someone you describe as 'understander'. I agree that a lot of people with too much faith tend to be quite ignorant when it comes to certain topics (both pro-science and pro-religion people actually ! ), but it's not like every 'understander' has a laboratory in his or her basement having confirmed lots of the scientific experiments.

In fact, the good stuff usually is largely as theoretical in nature as a good sci-fi novel would be when it comes to stuff surrounding the origin of everything. Of course the general scientific theories are a billion times more likely and plausible than a sci-fi novel could ever be, for all kinds of reasons, but faith is something funny when it comes to masses of people that blindly follow certain kinds of ideology.

In the end there is no wrong or right from the perspective of philosophy, let alone from the perspective of a certain lack of knowledge or the average quality of common knowledge. Having an actual true answer is something that's just too good to be true.