The best proof of god

That's not how science works. Scientists do not believe in the big bang theory, because it's not a belief. Some do advocate that model though, and others don't (a small minority of course). For science, no "laws" are set in stone. Theories and paradigms change and are discussed all the time. Science's purpose is to better describe and explain reality, making relations of cause and effect clear, so reworking concepts means you are reaching for new ones to change, substitute or expand previous ones. Successful models allows to some extent predictability of events and outcomes. The moment you 'believe' in the concept you are studying, you start losing the ability to evolve it. Advocating a concept does not mean you believe in it, but that it makes more sense to you (which normally demands providing demonstration, experimentation, etc.).

There is no concept in science that means that God or any other deity doesn't exist. And to be a scientist doesn't mean that you must adopt a certain kind of skepticism towards religion. Science welcomes change, and through it, it advances human knowledge in understanding "how" the universe works, "what" is it made of, etc. Because of that, one thing is asked of scientists: that they are humble to see that they do not hold greater truths, nor are their discoveries definitive.

Religion, on the other hand, is a set of dogmas that you must bind yourself to, or you won't be a follower. It is limited by faith as much as it's construed on it. If you change one important concept, you have just invented another religion. For example, to be a Christian, you must believe in Jesus Christ. If you cease to believe in Him, and starts having faith in Someone Else as the true Messiah, then you just converted yourself to that other religion, or even created a new religion yourself. There is no such thing as changing the basic premises behind the institutionalized religions. Knowledge in this area means being taught the religious rituals, beliefs and dogmas. If there are doubts, you must seek those legitimate to talk about said subjects representing the institution and the dogmas themselves. They will tell you how you may understand the world by the dogmas directives. Some less important issues, though, may be open for interpretation, since they do not change the core of the religion. Yet there will still be forbidden lines of interpretation. To finalize, there is the revealing of knowledge, not the discovery of it.

Philosophy, on the other hand, aims to search for the answers to the bigger truths. It is different from science, because scientific method is not essential to it, but it can be part of it. It's different from religion, because it can be discussed and logically criticized or even arguably proven wrong, but it's still developed around sets of values on certain school proponents. There is no philosophical current which is right, nor is there any one that is wrong, though the community of thinkers may nominate some as historically more important than others. Philosophy is not limited to the description and explanation of reality like science; it's not limited to beliefs and faith like religion. It may focus on specific target subjects, but it's implications will one way or another seek for universal explanations that do or intend to transcend those of science and religion. It's the "mother" of all knowledge, so you will find branchs that are aligned to other areas of knowledge, like christian philosophy, jewish philosophy, cartesian philosophy (cartesianism), existencial philosophy (existencialism), etc. It's not limited to the material or to the ethereal.

This is a very crude summing up on how these different areas of human knowledge work. So if there are scientists who "believe" in the big bang theory, they are either using the term loosely, or they are bad scientists for losing the necessary skeptcism that keeps science constantly evolving. Which is not necessarily a religious skeptcism.

If you dont beilive in god why would you value morality? Whats the point? Isnt good and evil the best prove of god? Why are some people good and some are evil? why arent we like robots? Isnt that enough of a proof of god?

Haven't we found it already?

@thegerg: Thus is the problem.

Thegerg... Would you like to discuss something else? If the world worshipped real, tangible and/or scientific theories ( The Church of the Multiverse, can you imagine? ) and cast off the current religions would society be better off? What say you?

Why do you think these things mean that there is no god?

@The_Last_Ride: Yes, I know, I wasn't thinking that you weren't. I just took the chance to clarify somethings that others may find interesting or not.

The problem of evil is a classic reason to not believe in a God. And really, the Christian God created everything, including the devil and lets the devil do evil things. Christians try to deny it, but this is part of their theology.

At least Zoroastrians have the ability to say their God didn't create evil, and actively tries to defeat it at every turn. It's the only monotheistic theology that I know of that actually doesn't attribute the creation of evil to the main deity.

That all said, only the weak-minded decide that they would only be "moral" if there is fear of retribution from an eternal punishment for their actions. The strong-minded know that morality stems from their choice to act with respect and dignity towards their fellow human being for it's own sake, rather than doing so for reward or punishment.

Some of the worst "evil" deeds thats happened in history have been done in the name of god......

At one point I remember you said evil does not exist. Now you're saying that the problem of evil is that God created evil which is not true. Because evil is non-existent. Evil is the absence of good. The word creation and the word thing go hand in hand. You can't create something if it's not a thing. In a philosophical term evil becomes every creation's "choice". If they choose not to exist meaning that they choose to act against the will of their creator then they become evil. To be more clear when something say a human-being acts against what God has planned for him he enters a state of non-existence by his choice. It's called "batil" as opposed to "haqq" in Islamic philosophy. So no. In all Abrahamic religions (at least Judaism and Islam) God is not the creator of evil the same way he is not the creator of "nothing".

The problem of evil is entirely a different thing than what you are implying. It's about why God allows evil to happen if he himself is just.

@Alienware_fan: If I remember correctly you are a Muslim. If so you should know that morality is inherent. I understand what you're trying to say. Morality is an ayah from God but It's not a direct proof of God's existence.

Like the 60 million people who died in world war 2? Literally all the major conflicts in the world happened because people chose this world's livelihood over afterlife. Because people wanted more land and wealth for their own country. Something that goes against religion LOL.

At one point I remember you said evil does not exist.

You made a distinction between the definition of "religions" and "the religions." If you throw out the definition of the word we're using it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you what you mean.

If we were having a discussion about videogames and I said something like "I'm not talking about videogames, I'm talking about "the videogames" wouldn't you want to know how "videogames" is different from "the videogames"?

Exactly. The context in which he used "the religions" tells us that he thinks "the religions" are different from religions. He keeps avoiding that part of it.