if god were true or real, then its perfectly plausible that science can prove he doesn't exist ....yet he still does. Science can't break gods rules, if he existed, but he can break sciences....and of course thats illogical.

Whats also illogical is trying to win a debate using logical, with someone who only thinks in terms of faith.....i have no idea why 'smart' 'logical' people do this....

As for 1000's of years of human understanding....using science as our basis i think there there is more proof that war cannot be solved by logically figuring out who is right.....we are more intelligent people say....yet warfare continues to escalate.

You've proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's illogical to talk to you, but I don't think everyone holds such insufferable positions as yourself which is why people like myself will continue to try and help people who seem to want to discuss the topic come to a better understanding of things.

Ok thats fine, and I can't argue with you calling me illogical. But I do think its illogical to for 2 sides to debate over something that can't be put to rest....thats not me vs you....thats religion vs non religion with me standing on the outside wondering why each side is justifying conflict over a debate that can't be settled.

As long as you understand thats my thought then we've both made our points....that yours is the debate can be proven and settled. (I'm just making sure thats what your arguing and that you don't think I'm on the religion side and your on the non side). You think the debate can and needs to be settled i think...and I don't think it can be, therefore the conflict would be solely for conflict.

I'm not debating exactly the same thing you're debating. I think the debate doesn't really matter and I think the debate will never end because there are people on each side that are willing to argue unproven things (it would be similar to debating someone about the existence of bigfoot). The main reason the debate will never end is simply because religious people start out their argument with false evidence and reasoning, then once that's proven wrong they cling to the religious "It's all magic" argument. So people like myself see the initial argument and think "Cool, they think they know what they're talking about, maybe I can help them come to a more correct conclusion", but then they abandon those initial positions or start using magical excuses. At that point both parties are involved in the argument and it's probably not going to end.

That said, I think religion is stupid, and I've outlined why already.

The problem is that history has taught us that faith is a great way to be wrong. We do not accept 'not having any evidence' as a good reason to believe anything else, and rightly so. Yet, for this one thing that we really want to be true, many not only consider it acceptable, but a virtue. Not only does this make no sense from a god's perspective (why would a god create a system by which faith is a terrible path to truth for almost everything, but for the one most important thing, the one he really wants us to know, he reverses the system?) but it also makes no sense from our perspective; if we keep getting the wrong answer to questions via one method, why would we try to use it for any other method?

I had troubles exactly understand all this, or maybe I did understand...but i think you are talking about the argument of which side is correct...for thousands of years human cannot agree....isn't it possible the argument can't be won? isn't it likely?

After thousands of years of debate isn't it possible that religion has evolved to a point that no logic can fully refute it? Which doesn't mean that religion is correct...but that the conflict is never ending...

That depends on what you mean by "winning the argument." If by "winning the argument" you mean, "Can we logically demonstrate that X is incorrect if X is defined as something that cannot be demonstrated to be incorrect?" then no, this is an argument that has no resolution in that sense. In this case, X is what is called 'unfalsifiable' and science only deals with questions that are falsifiable. If, however, you wish "winning the argument" to mean "which side makes more sense to accept" then the answer is 'no faith', for reasons stated above.

In short, we can show that relying on faith is a bad thing.

No no...I am saying even if you prove, logically, without a doubt god doesn't exist... a believer will say thats devilry and yes he does...

Even if god comes down and says here I am....a logician will say...thats not possible so no you aren't....

the conflict can't be resolved...isn't that clear?

edit: A believer will say, what about this evidence and this evidence etc....and a non believer will say what about this and this.......and im saying what about human conflict since antiquity.....doesn't that at least suggest we can't resolve the debate...

if we take the side the debate can't be solved...the conflict goes away.

I do not think that we can demonstrate anything absolutely, but I am sure if we had very good evidence that no gods existed, some believers would still deny it. I do think that many would eventually change their position, though.

I think you may be confusing science with logic here (logic is an important tool in science, but we do not usually accept a simple logical argument as a reason to believe that something is real; that often involves demonstrability) but I think this is wrong. The reason many people do not believe in god is the lack of evidence for existence. If we had good reason to believe, such as a god "coming down" to greet us, many would change their position.

Well, the conflict does not quite go away because the reason there is conflict in the first place is that beliefs influence our actions and our actions affect other people who do not necessarily share those beliefs. Nevertheless, if your question is simply, "Is there currently a slam dunk argument that will convince everybody one way or the other?" then the answer is clearly no, there is not.

The problem comes down to definition. What is god? How do you know what god is? Well...how do you know? Huh? No, no, no, how do you KNOW what god is? I don't care what your definition of what god is, my question is HOW do you KNOW what god is?

The reality is that the "how" question can't be answered by anyone. The "how" question needs to be answered before the "if" question can be broached. Therefore the question of "if' god exists is meaningless.

I think that your view here perpetuates war.

I also think this ignores the point and perpetuates war.

This too.

I wasn't arguing the sides...I was saying this ^^^ you can see its meaningless....can you see fighting over it is pointless?

And i'm not talking about war here.....im talking about the debate....

two sides debate, each thinking if they are correct in the end...then the debate is justified...

but neither can see....regardless....the debate is wrong, it does nothing but create conflict and can never do anything else but create conflict.

The conflict that arises from religious beliefs causes and perpetuates wars, yes. I am not sure why you think my thoughts on who would change their minds given different pieces of evidence would do that, though.

I guess im saying in theory you are correct but in reality it can't or won't happen. But nonetheless I think we've come to our resolution, because I can't understand how you can't see how it does create or sustain conflict.

I think you have confused yourself. The term 'it' in the statement above seems to refer to the opposition between those on the various sides of the question of the existence of god(s). But the post you quoted was not referencing that question. It was referencing your response to my disagreement with your position about what would happen in various situations. I do not understand why my disagreement with how people would react to a situation would have any influence over war.