Does God really exist?

[JFox]

The lock is purely symbolic, showing that the man cannot get through the door. If you want, I could say that its a fake door, and nothing is behind it. Would you prefer that I reword my post, or can we stop being technical?

Edit: I am not going to debate what God is. I don't have that answer. I am just saying that your logic did not prove that there is a God, it may have disproved only that God is a free agent or omniscient.

I have no idea what God is, and I don't claim to. I am not taking a side, because I don't know if God exists.

 

[snex]

well if youd read my entire post, youd see that i was only arguing strong atheism against specific gods, and christians hold their god to have free will, whether the bible explicitly states as such or not.

however, saying that you dont know what god is means that its impossible to even begin to discuss his existence. whats the point of arguing over the existence of something of which we have no knowledge?

 

[JFox]

Just because I don't know what God is, does not mean that I can not argue that a God CAN exist. You were trying to say that your equation had disproved God, when in fact it had not. I am saying all it disproves is a God that is both a free agent, and omniscient.

"and christians hold their god to have free will"

You contradict yourself by saying that, because previously you said that you the idea of God being a free agent is argued by theologians. So you can say the majority of christians do, but you cannot say that all christians do. (And there is no evidence that even the majority of them do, although I wouldn't doubt it.)

 

[snex]

Just because I don't know what God is, does not mean that I can not argue that a God CAN exist. You were trying to say that your equation had disproved God, when in fact it had not. I am saying all it disproves is a God that is both a free agent, and omniscient.

learn to read please. this is all explained in my original post.

and no, you cannot argue that a god CAN exist if i dont even know what you are referring to when you say "god." you might as well try to argue the existence of zorks.

You contradict yourself by saying that, because previously you said that you the idea of God being a free agent is argued by theologians. So you can say the majority of christians do, but you cannot say that all christians do. (And there is no evidence that even the majority of them do, although I wouldn't doubt it.)

once again, you need to learn to read. i said that ANCIENT theologians debated this.

 

[JFox]

You need to learn to debate without insulting someone, because that doesn't help make your points any stronger.

Just because they were ancient theologians does not mean that the free agent debate has been resolved. No where does it say in the bible, that God is a free agent. So the question of free agent still remains.

And my knowledge of the exact definition of God is not what we are debating. If you want to debate the Christian God (which I am not sure I believe in) than I can still choose to debate against you regardless of my belief in God. All I have stated is that you did not disprove the Christian God, because the principle of God being a free agent is not one that is excepted by all christians.

If you have anything further to say on the matter, please feel free. Please leave your insults out of the debates, they do nothing to help your side. I assure you that I can read, and have read all of your posts.

 

[blazedaces]

JFox, please define this God then. In a debate we have to know what it is we are debating about. You could define God as anything at this point, ranging from an all-powerful being to a carrot. If your God is not a free agent then how can it be said that he is all powerful at all? If he doesn't have the power to anything different then what he is "destined" to do. If God can not change anything what is the point of his existance? Why did God not just "start" things and then let them go? Why does God need to exist right now if he can not change the way anything will be because he can not act against the current way things "must" be?

Certainly though you at least believe that God is all-good because I'm sure this is stated over and over again throughout the Bible. Yet if God is not a free agent he could never change anything bad from happening to good or vice versa. His "all-goodness" is useless, is it not? In that case, what makes him any more "all-good" then "all-bad"? What makes him either? He has no true power if he can't change anything.

 

[snex]

if you had read my posts, then you would respond to them, rather than to a strawman of your own making.

it seems that you are only interested in arguing semantics. you demand that everybody accept your unstated and admittedly unknown definitions of "god" and "free will."

if you dont know what these things are, then you should not be here debating about them.

you have rejected the fact that god makes CHOICES because you claim that the bible is just trying to explain it in a way that we could understand. yet even if the bible clearly said the words "god has free will" you could dismiss it as the same thing!

it is truly sad the tactics that theists have resorted to in this thread. cognitive dissonance and outright denial of logic do not prove anything other than that theists will sink to any low to hold onto their tattered beliefs.

 

[JFox]

you have rejected the fact that god makes CHOICES because you claim that the bible is just trying to explain it in a way that we could understand. yet even if the bible clearly said the words "god has free will" you could dismiss it as the same thing!

How does that statement make any sense?! That is completely false.

All I was trying to do was prove that snex's equation which was trying to prove that God did not exist, had a small flaw, and that was that no one knows if God is a free agent.

I am finished discussing the subject. I am sick of putting up with people that twist my words, insults that have nothing to do with the subject, or completely ignoring previous posts. I stated over and over that I do not know what God is, and that I am not going to try to define one. And I also stated many times that I didn't want to try to defend God, or christianity, I just wanted to show a flaw in the equation. And now I have done that, so I will withdraw from the debate.

 

[snex]

it makes perfect sense. you say that the bible saying god chooses isnt proof of free will because it was only DESCRIBED as choosing to make it understandable.

well, if the bible said specifically that god has free will, you could reject it by saying that the bible only DESCRIBES it as free will to make it understandable.

in other words, you are engaging in cognitive dissonance.

now, lets list the supposed "flaws" in my argument that have been brought up so far:

1) god might not have free will (this was stated as a premise, and almost all god-believers accept it)
2) god might not be omniscient, or omniscience might not entail knowledge of the future (first part stated as a premise, and again, almost all god-believers accept it. second part i believe i have dealt with)
3) logic itself is invalid

does anybody have any "flaws" that were not explicitly stated as premises that most god-believers accept or that dont require throwing out the only thing that enables us to even debate the issue?

 

[JFox]

Ok Snex, than if you wanna put it that way, I will agree with you. Most god-believers do believe in two ideas that seem paradoxical. I am gald we can agree. As for the small amount that do not believe in both...anything to disprove those ideas?

 

[snex]

i cannot disprove something that has no positive attributes. i need definitions of what god IS before i can even begin to debate their plausibility.

 

[Crimson King]

It is impossible to disprove god. You cannot prove something DOESN'T exist. The burden of proof is on the believers.

 

[Panik]

I agree Crimson, but none of the non-believers will be satisfied. I guess I'm one of the only believers on this thread, and I have to say that I have no rock hard evidence that can appease you. Take a look back at my last post if you want my reasons. Everyone skipped that post and went straight into whether God is a free agent or not, haha. I don't mind though, but that is where my biggest argument and answer lies. I'm sorry I can't provide you with Jesus' Robe or the Ark of the Covenant. I can't provide you anything worthy. That is why God is based on FAITH. Relationships with God are personal, and I'm talking about the real ones. NOT the relationships spawned in churches throughout America, but the ones that are spawned in the soul. I can't really backup any of this and I can't expect anyone to understand. But, if you ever feel the energy (or whatever it is) wash over you, you will never forget it. I can't really explain this "energy", but it is basically a feeling of total calm and reassurance that things will work out eventually. It's a complete warmth. After that energy floods you, you gain a new perspective on things almost immediately, an enlightenment if you will. Now I'm no bible beater, churchgoer, or even an optimistic person really, but I can assure you that this thread is basically useless now. You won't get any answers that will make you feel accomplished from the believers, and the answers that non believers give won't be recieved either. Facts have no true meaning when one trusts in the supernatural with faith alone.

EDIT: I'm not trying to hurt any feelings, but I'm assuming some of you won't be able to be happy with your stance on this topic until you have completely disproved God's existence. But since this topic has no resolution, why do you stand your ground still?.

 

[Jimayo]

In everything but religion a lack of proof constitutes untrue(for example, I've had numerous arguments about the existence of Guan Suo, third son of Guan Yu, who is a fictional character in the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. He does not appear in any historical reference, which is taken by historians to mean that he is in fact a fictional character, although there are those who refuse to believe that because they like him from the book and from the video games), but in religion the lack of proof means you need to have faith. I've never really understood that.

 

[snex]

But, if you ever feel the energy (or whatever it is) wash over you, you will never forget it. I can't really explain this "energy", but it is basically a feeling of total calm and reassurance that things will work out eventually. It's a complete warmth. After that energy floods you, you gain a new perspective on things almost immediately, an enlightenment if you will.

the problem with this claim is that it does not prove god exists, even assuming it is true. muslims will claim they have the same feeling. hindus will claim to have it. buddhists will claim to have it even without any gods. in fact, even i claim to have it.

there is no reason to accept your interpretation of it over anybody elses other than evidence. and thats the one thing that every single religion that attempts to claim these experiences for itself lacks, evidence.

 

[JFox]

I have felt that energy before that you are talking about, back when I was a strong believer in Christianity. But sometimes I feel like your body can create those feelings of energy whenever it finds it appropriate. When I listen to music, I sometimes feel that same energy, but in smaller doses. I think the body can create that feeling, but its difficult to control. However, I will say I felt it more strongly than ever while thinking that it was coming from God. And I am not trying to say it wasn't God, because I simply don't know.

But anyway, I was thinking of a logical explanation for why humans believe in such thing as a God. And it does make a lot of sense really. Everything is cause and effect. And every effect is also a cause, and vice versa. If you trace back every effect to its cause, and keep going back, the mind hits a dead end, interestingly enough we call this the beginning. At the very beginning there has to be an initial cause to have started the chain reaction. And because the initial cause must not have something else that caused it(because it was the first), than the initial cause must have been super natural, since it did not need a cause.

Another similar way of thinking about this is that every life form comes from another life form. So the first life form must have been a super nautral life form because it is the only life form that did not spawn from another.

 

[blazedaces]

I have felt that energy before that you are talking about, back when I was a strong believer in Christianity. But sometimes I feel like your body can create those feelings of energy whenever it finds it appropriate. When I listen to music, I sometimes feel that same energy, but in smaller doses. I think the body can create that feeling, but its difficult to control. However, I will say I felt it more strongly than ever while thinking that it was coming from God. And I am not trying to say it wasn't God, because I simply don't know.

But anyway, I was thinking of a logical explanation for why humans believe in such thing as a God. And it does make a lot of sense really. Everything is cause and effect. And every effect is also a cause, and vice versa. If you trace back every effect to its cause, and keep going back, the mind hits a dead end, interestingly enough we call this the beginning. At the very beginning there has to be an initial cause to have started the chain reaction. And because the initial cause must not have something else that caused it(because it was the first), than the initial cause must have been super natural, since it did not need a cause.

Another similar way of thinking about this is that every life form comes from another life form. So the first life form must have been a super nautral life form because it is the only life form that did not spawn from another.

You are using Thomas Aquina's proof of god. The problem with this proof is that it assumes that there needs to be a first cause. The problems with this is that means that cause and effect doesn't need to be true for something. Why does there need to be a first cause? Why does this first cause need to be God? Why should a first cause be omniscient and omnipotent? If cause and effect hold then that law should hold for everything. If it does not hold for everything then there is no reason to assume that it doesn't hold for more things.

 

[JFox]

You are using Thomas Aquina's proof of god. The problem with this proof is that it assumes that there needs to be a first cause. The problems with this is that means that cause and effect doesn't need to be true for something. Why does there need to be a first cause? Why does this first cause need to be God? Why should a first cause be omniscient and omnipotent? If cause and effect hold then that law should hold for everything. If it does not hold for everything then there is no reason to assume that it doesn't hold for more things.

You really need to clarify your posts. I have so much trouble understand what you are talking about....reread that last sentence...wtf does that mean?!

I was not trying to prove God using this logic, I was merely explaining the need for people to invent Gods.

And if I understand what you are trying to say, which is doubted, you are saying that not everything is a product of cause and effect. So please, give me an example of something that isn't cause and effect.

Lastly, I am not sure who Thomas Aquina is, you want to explain that a bit?

 

[blazedaces]

You really need to clarify your posts. I have so much trouble understand what you are talking about....reread that last sentence...wtf does that mean?!

I was not trying to prove God using this logic, I was merely explaining the need for people to invent Gods.

And if I understand what you are trying to say, which is doubted, you are saying that not everything is a product of cause and effect. So please, give me an example of something that isn't cause and effect.

Lastly, I am not sure who Thomas Aquina is, you want to explain that a bit?

It's not my fault you can't understand my sentences. I'm not repeating that whole thing, so I'll just explain what the last sentence said and how your misinterpretation was wrong. I said in my last sentence "If it does not hold for everything then there is no reason to assume that it doesn't hold for more things." That means that if this first cause (God) does not need to obey the law of cause and effect then there's nothing to say that other things don't exist that can also not follow the law of cause and effect. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to assume the law of cause and effect applies to all things if you're trying to prove that a thing exists which doesn't follow the law. Either it's a law that applies to all things or it doesn't apply to all things. That's my point.

I never said that some things don't follow this law, but that if God doesn't follow this law it suggests other things can exist that don't follow this law. Why should the first cause be the only exception?

 

[JFox]

Gods, are always able to break the laws that make up our universe. The rules never apply to a God, which is what makes that idea of God so different from a human being. Hence the whole "super natural" idea behind Gods.

So the laws, in this case cause and effect, do not apply to a God, making a God have the ability to create the first cause. The rules still hold true to anything that is not super natural. Its quite an easy concept to understand really...

Edit:

I didn't want to double post so I am just adding this question on here.

It is impossible to disprove god. You cannot prove something DOESN'T exist. The burden of proof is on the believers.

If you believe that you cannot prove or disprove God, than how could we possibly have a debate on the matter? Why even open this topic up for debate if you didn't think we could prove anything here?

 

[snex]

Gods, are always able to break the laws that make up our universe. The rules never apply to a God, which is what makes that idea of God so different from a human being. Hence the whole "super natural" idea behind Gods.

So the laws, in this case cause and effect, do not apply to a God, making a God have the ability to create the first cause. The rules still hold true to anything that is not super natural. Its quite an easy concept to understand really...

this is just an assertion to avoid a logical problem. it doesnt solve the problem merely because you claim god is immune to it. either causality applies to all things or it does not. if it applies to all things, it applies to god. if it does not apply to all things, then it does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.

If you believe that you cannot prove or disprove God, than how could we possibly have a debate on the matter? Why even open this topic up for debate if you didn't think we could prove anything here?

the fact that something is inherently unprovable or undemonstrable is a very good reason to disbelieve in it because you could not tell the difference between a universe that contained it and a universe that didnt, so you might as well assume that it doesnt exist.

for example, do you believe in particles that cannot be detected by any means whatsoever? you shouldnt, because if they cannot be detected by any means whatsoever, they have no effects on the universe and are indistinguishable from nothing at all.

 

[JFox]

Snex, you fail to see that I am not debating against you still. I was asking Crimson why he would open up a debate, and than respond to those who are trying to debate with a statement such as that. It is illogical to debate on this subject, because it cannot be proven or disproven, and yet the person who had just stated that had also started the debate.

And about the cause and effect thing...a super natural being, if there is such a thing, is not a part of the universe, so would not need to abide by its rules.

 

[snex]

you do not have an adequate definition of what it means to be "supernatural." you are still attempting to bend the rules by defining them to be not applicable before-hand. you cannot do this.

either causality applies to ALL things or causality does NOT apply to all things.

 

[JFox]

Lets just pretend for one second that there is a God....How can a God, who is defined as all powerful, be confined by the rules of a universe that he is not a part of? It simply doesn't make sense. If the rules only apply to a universe he is not a part of, they couldn't apply to him! It is like saying that the laws of a different country apply to the US.

It seems like no matter what it is, if it has to do with God, you will fight it. No matter how silly the topic gets.

 

[snex]

you are the one making silly propositions. if you want me to stop arguing against them, try saying something coherent.

either causality applies to all things,

in which case it applies to god too

or causality does not apply to all things,

in which case the universe might not even need a cause.

there is NO way out of this logic. you can kick and scream and plug your fingers in your ears and say "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" all you want but it wont change the facts.

 

[JFox]

How about this: causality applies to all things in THIS universe. And since we don't know anything about other universes, it is a totally plausible statement to say that causality doesn't apply to God's universe....if there were to be such a thing.

Anyway, all I was trying to say was that humans create super natural beings to explain unexplainable things. This way the super natural being does not need to go by our rules, and can bend the rules as they see fit. i.e. creating matter and such.

 

[blazedaces]

How about this: causality applies to all things in THIS universe. And since we don't know anything about other universes, it is a totally plausible statement to say that causality doesn't apply to God's universe....if there were to be such a thing.

Anyway, all I was trying to say was that humans create super natural beings to explain unexplainable things. This way the super natural being does not need to go by our rules, and can bend the rules as they see fit. i.e. creating matter and such.

The universe encompasses all that exists. Nothing exists "outside the universe" because that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, how would a being in a different universe affect ours? So you want different confiments of matter and energy with different laws abiding to them and somehow they're interacting and for some reason this being is interested in us? Why would a universe exist in which beings can quite literally create other universe's? How would the rest of the laws of this universe work?

 

[JFox]

Dude I have no idea...its fictional! It doesn't really exist man. I am just pulling **** out of my *** with these ideas guys. God's existence is purely speculated so any rules could be made up that the creator wants. Want me to make some up for you? Here you want me to try an imagine how it works?

Ya know how SSBM works? It has its own set of rules, it is like its own mini universe. But we created it. There you go. We are in our universe, and we don't follow their rules, but still created it. There, are you satisfied?

Now in actuality, I do not believe that there are multiple universes, ours being created by a magic man. Please go back to how all of this sillyness started. You guys are trying to debate with someone who is just making up hypothetical cases that could in some screwed up way could exist, but DEFINETLY dont!

End of discussion.

 

[snex]

You guys are trying to debate with someone who is just making up hypothetical cases that could in some screwed up way could exist, but DEFINETLY dont!

you are just making up hypothetical cases that make sense as english sentences but have no actual meaning, and you continue to do so despite the fact that they have no meaning and we are telling you why. in other words, you are not debating, you are just being a ****.

 

[Panik]

Hmmmm... Nobody stabbed me yet, which is cool. I don't hate you, or not want to hear what you have to say, Snex, but I have to say Fox makes sense. I don't think there would be any rules when a "magic man" created the rules. In fact, there wouldn't even be any boundaries! I don't know who is right, nor do I think it will be solved in our lifetimes, but I do think that hypothetical questions do very much apply to a debate about whether God exists.

 

[snex]

no, it doesnt make sense.

imagine the following:

i claim that there is a dragon in my garage.
you look in my garage, see nothing, and say no there isnt.
i say "you fool, the dragon is invisible!"
so you spread powdered sugar over the floor, but no tracks form.
i say "you fool, the dragon flies!"
so you put nets all over the room, but none get invisible dragons caught in them.
i say "you fool, the dragon can shrink himself!"

do you see where this is going? it will never stop, because no matter what test you come up with, i can RETROACTIVELY give you an excuse for why your test failed to catch the dragon. no matter what you do, i can still claim the dragon exists because i am allowed to change the rules after-the-fact.

this is exactly what people try to do with god, and it is invalid reasoning.

 

[Panik]

I respect you Snex. Really I do. You're the only one that I have deemed worthy in this debate that is debating against me. You make the most sense with your rebuttals, yet the point of believing in God is not beating around the bush trying to confuse non believers. I know, I know, unfortunately this is true for a lot of ignorant bible beating Christians who attempt to force their beliefs on outsiders. But the true belief in God lies within a personal relationship with him spiritually, not through any book or church. The existence can only be proved to people that want to believe in it or need it. If believers had the faith of a mustard seed then they would be invincible. This goes for anything that takes faith. Faith ultimately gives us confidence and various other "good things". The truth is that no believer fully commits to God. Nobody in the world can commit fully to something that is based on no fact, but rather pure faith. It just ISN'T humanly possible for this kind of faith to exist. People will explain this blind faith though as saintly bahavior. Who knows if true saints exist, that is a whole other topic in itself. Anyway, I see what you're saying, but who you are arguing against are not people like me, but diehard "You're goin' ta hail!" type baptist bible beaters. I mean, those people will always plague us, but you have to deal with a little ignorance to pass the test of life without killing anyone. I, like you, Snex doubt a lot of things, including God. I believe in him partially but somethings don't quite make sense to me yet. I doubt that the Christian God is the correct God, for there are so many to choose from. Forget church guys, It gets you nowhere quick as well. I assume you are an educated person though because you doubt. It seems that the most knowledgable people on Earth are the most notorious doubters. If you have read the bible, which I assumed you have at least read a little to support arguments, then you may have seen this from the book of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 1:18 - For the greater my wisdom, the greater my grief. To increase knowledge only increases sorrow.

Don't take this the wrong way though, we should gather knowledge. I think the main problem with gaining too much, is that we hit a point where our knowledge causes us to doubt, worry, and question everything we percieve. I don't know about ya'll, but that is'nt the way I want to live. Oh and Snex, the bible comment wasn't meant to be a insult to your knowledge of the bible. Later.

!

 

[MikeMan445]

Don't take this the wrong way though, we should gather knowledge. I think the main problem with gaining too much, is that we hit a point where our knowledge causes us to doubt, worry, and question everything we percieve. I don't know about ya'll, but that is'nt the way I want to live. Oh and Snex, the bible comment wasn't meant to be a insult to your knowledge of the bible. Later.

It most definitely is the way I want to live. I'd rather question than live with my head buried under the sand, or buried in a 2,000 year old book.

 

[Panik]

You obviously haven't gained enough knowledge yet. Keep questioning and the answers will be revealed. I love how you have the amazing abilities to take things out of context. No really, I applaud you. First of all, I'm not the one who is burrying my head in the sand. Sure, some Christians are, but they don't really believe in God anyway. But like I said it is good to gather knowledge. You type as if I never said that, and that is the first line in your quote! Another point stemming from point number one is, how do you know you are not burrying your head in the sand? Are you all knowing? It doesn't matter which side of this argument you are on, you still have the ability to bury your head in the sand. I'm sorry to judge you from your post but you sound like the stereotypical nonbeliever who burries his or her own head in the sand. I many be wrong, but if you intend to prove me wrong or my belief system wrong, come back when you have gathered enough knowledge to dig your head out of the sand.

 

[MikeMan445]

You obviously haven't gained enough knowledge yet. Keep questioning and the answers will be revealed. I love how you have the amazing abilities to take things out of context. No really, I applaud you. First of all, I'm not the one who is burrying my head in the sand. Sure, some Christians are, but they don't really believe in God anyway. But like I said it is good to gather knowledge. You type as if I never said that, and that is the first line in your quote! Another point stemming from point number one is, how do you know you are not burrying your head in the sand? Are you all knowing? It doesn't matter which side of this argument you are on, you still have the ability to bury your head in the sand. I'm sorry to judge you from your post but you sound like the stereotypical nonbeliever who burries his or her own head in the sand. I many be wrong, but if you intend to prove me wrong or my belief system wrong, come back when you have gathered enough knowledge to dig your head out of the sand.

To get away from the sand metaphor a bit (we've certainly overused it between the two of us with these last two points), what I took your words to mean is that you think living in doubt is a difficult way to live. I certainly agree. In addition, I was not taking your words out of context. I was responding to a particular passage that you ended your post with. The fact that you began your paragraph with a seemingly contradictory phrase is not really my fault.

Either you believe one should live their lives striving for knowledge or you don't. I personally believe we should, and the doubt that comes with the territory is a necessary part of having an open mind. I never said you were closed-minded, nor did I personally attack you. I was addressing the paragraph in your post in which you attempted to show the problems with living life in a questioning manner.

I'm sure I'm closed-minded about a lot of things (I am human, after all) but I certainly strive to be as open-minded as possible about scientific and epistemological matters. So no, I would say I'm the opposite of having my head buried. If you mean to say that, by valuing logic and reason above all else, I'm "burying my head," then I must confess: there's really not much dialog we can have on this or any other subject. I value reason, and you should too.

To reiterate: I was not trying to attack or insult you. I was merely addressing the sentiment you ended your post with. I stand by what I said, but if it doesn't apply to you, all the better.

 

[Panik]

Alright, we're not at war anymore haha. But there is a middle area that I believe in. While we strive for knowledge, I do believe we must keep a balance. For instance, if all you do is search for answers, then you will never gain all the knowledge you need. On the otherhand, if you just live your life and constantly absorb information, then you Might not go crazy haha. I wasn't really contradicting myself because I believe in this middle area. A healthy balance if you will. I do value reason, but the subject of faith doesn't use much reason, and you must understand this. Sorry I overreacted, but next time, only quote the end if that is what you are talking about. Later.

 

[Sandy]

If God didn't exist, then who created mankind?

Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not; some examples include

• whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence
  
• whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality
  
• whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

There is no physical proof of there being a god or ever had being a god. The old wives tales and campfire stories of ancient goat herders are just as ludicrous as those told of the Roman Pantheon.

 

[KevinM]

There is no physical proof of there being a god or ever had being a god. The old wives tales and campfire stories of ancient goat herders are just as ludicrous as those told of the Roman Pantheon.

I have to agree with this, there is no physical evidence that points to the existence of god. The Bible is a collection of stories, based on faith.. along with books such as the Koran, and the collection of scriptures known as the Veda. There is no physical proof of god and its based on faith, and a belief that a higher power has created what you see around us.

At this points its hard to disprove or prove that god exists but based on the fact that the only way God exists to the religions right now is based on faiths, more people find it easier to discredit His existence.

(A brief note, although I'm not deeply religious, i believe in higher powers and some of the teachings of religious scriptures but i do not believe in most of the old testament or a lot of the new testament, take it how it is please.)

 

[Me14k]

Even though there is no physical proof and the shear idea makes little sense, I must say there must be something out there for billions of people to devote their life to worshiping and in some cases giving their lives for a 'god'.

I think when we look at the aspect of god, its more than a being that is supposed to nurture and care for us, I think that god and religeon in its own is something that brings people together.

Yes, religeon can cause wars but ultimatly it creates groups for people to seek help from...look at church how much is benefited via church donations and events