Does God exist?

[timtamboy63]

Does it matter?

If God does not exist, the illusion of God is keeping millions of people from committing crimes because they believe that they will be judged by this God figure when they die.

If he does exist, well then the same concept applies.

Personally, I find it hard to believe in God. I believe that there is something out there that we don't understand, be it some form of Energy, or something we can't even put into words because we don't understand it yet.

At the same time however, I find it hard to believe that there is not a God, or some kind of creator who created Earth. Simply because the design of our planet, the underlying simplicity within the complexness, and the repeated numerical patterns we see in Nature make it hard for me to see it as a big accident.

[autolycus]

So, how would one set about proving that one was a moral animal?

You could always read this and note that most definitions of morality require some form of measurement by an external standard in order to be useful.

I'm not an animal. I am a man. And no one needs to measure my morality but me.

Your link is of the broadest possible definition of morality, which I personally - as well as movements such as existentialism - reject, at least partially. Stanford =/= Universal Guide to Everything.

Why do I need an "external standard" for my morals to "be useful?" Do you honestly need someone else to tell you what is right and what is wrong, before you make any possible decision?

P.S. Philosophical definition of man, not biological, kthkx.

So, where did you learn your morality from, or was it organically grown? Empirically, I do believe most people have had someone else tell them what is right and what is wrong, or otherwise educate them (e.g. by punishment and reward) in order to create a moral sense or at least a corpus of behaviours acting as its equivalent. Your last question is possibly one of the more amusing ones in this thread.

[citizenoftheuniverse]

Someone here said that when you ask "Have you seen god?" from a religious person they refer to faith, but I disagree with that. Whenever I ask that question, my religious friends always have religious anecdotes from their lives about seeing angels and family members being healed and stuff like that. So then the only answer to that is to say they are delusional or believe them, which leaves you as their non-religious friend in an awkward position ,either ending with them winning the argument or then you offending them.

[Jazmine]

Does God exist?

You cant see him, you cant hear him but can you feel him?

If there is a God is there only one? Would it be like the Greek system and have multiple gods? Is there really just one or is that just the word of one man?

Everyone has their own beliefs, their own opinions but how does or how can anyone really know whats true? There is no right. There is no wrong. There may be a god, up there watching down on us, but there might not be.

And if there is one, a God, them why is the modern world the way it is?

[haley.the.great]

I identify as an agnostic. (basically passive form of atheism for those who are unfamiliar; I don't actively believe in god but I don't actively deny a god's existence either) I was not raised in a religious family, but my parents fostered any belief I was interested in and I've come to learn about several.

It's an endless cycle of debate as far as I'm concerned, and while this may sound over-simplified, it really doesn't matter what the answer is because it is all reliant on faith. Believers dub non-believers foolish for not accepting the love and care that a god must provide, and non-believers dub believers foolish for wasting their lives on endless pursuits. From my standpoint, they're all foolish for being so certain about something that nobody can prove. Blind faith doesn't come naturally to me, obviously. And I'm not suggesting that debate is unhealthy, because I find it really interesting........but my position is n/a.

Ok but here's something that bothers me...I live in Texas so I'm exposed to a whole lot of hardcore followers of some sort of god. When I get a good grade, there's always a friend behind my shoulder telling me, "Oh, it must be because of God's grace!" It's like, excuse me hon? No, god didn't write my essay. That was me. Heh..yeahhh hard to believe I can actually think for myself but yep! It's totally possible and hereeee's proof! It's so, just, offensive to diminish my hard work and replace it with the effortless care of some superior being who may or may not exist, ya know? I also don't like it when religion is shoved down my throat (I find it very disrespectful), but that is inevitable here. Religion is also a topic for another day.

It's so nice to live by my own motto and I seem to be getting along just wonderfully without a god's help. I am more of the belief that humans are capable of defining their own morality, so the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to me.

[sarahlouise]

Personally I don't believe God exists. I find it too unbelievable that there may be one, and I find so much of it all contradictory and foolish really.

[Proletariat]

I identify as an agnostic. (basically passive form of atheism for those who are unfamiliar; I don't actively believe in god but I don't actively deny a god's existence either) I was not raised in a religious family, but my parents fostered any belief I was interested in and I've come to learn about several.

It's an endless cycle of debate as far as I'm concerned, and while this may sound over-simplified, it really doesn't matter what the answer is because it is all reliant on faith. Believers dub non-believers foolish for not accepting the love and care that a god must provide, and non-believers dub believers foolish for wasting their lives on endless pursuits. From my standpoint, they're all foolish for being so certain about something that nobody can prove. Blind faith doesn't come naturally to me, obviously. And I'm not suggesting that debate is unhealthy, because I find it really interesting........but my position is n/a.

Ok but here's something that bothers me...I live in Texas so I'm exposed to a whole lot of hardcore followers of some sort of god. When I get a good grade, there's always a friend behind my shoulder telling me, "Oh, it must be because of God's grace!" It's like, excuse me hon? No, god didn't write my essay. That was me. Heh..yeahhh hard to believe I can actually think for myself but yep! It's totally possible and hereeee's proof! It's so, just, offensive to diminish my hard work and replace it with the effortless care of some superior being who may or may not exist, ya know? I also don't like it when religion is shoved down my throat (I find it very disrespectful), but that is inevitable here. Religion is also a topic for another day.

It's so nice to live by my own motto and I seem to be getting along just wonderfully without a god's help. I am more of the belief that humans are capable of defining their own morality, so the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to me.

This is my own position in a nutshell, 100% =P Only difference is that I'm personally not at a position where I'm ready to say God is irrelevant to me. My earlier participation in this thread and other debates on God I've had with friends and teachers has convinced me that religion is a topic I should just not engage in. I can't "win", I don't even know what a "win" would be, and every debate ends in the same way: everyone angry/agitated for reasons no one can ever articulate afterwards.

[Guest Red XII]

On the mind point: There's scientific and experiential evidence to suggest the existence of the mind. That's why we know it exists. The same is not true for a supreme being.

On Pascal's Wager: Even if a god exists, a god that judges not on whether you believe in him/her/it but whether you lived a moral life would have no problem with those who didn't believe, so long as they lived morally.

[bigbangfan]

God obviously exists. We may not find any pragmatic proof to support our claim, but religious persons find it in faith. Faith is what keeps us believing there is a God. All of you that conclued that God does not exist because we find no scientific proof are way way wrong. If you didn´t know, Religion and Science complement each other. There are answers that cannot be found by science but are found by religion and the other way round.

God has to be searched by human beings, it will not come as something automatic. Deep thinking and reflection is necessary. God is a discipline manifested through the Bible that makes human beings live to the fullest. Everyone can find God, it just requires faith, faith and more faith. Faith is a form of knowledge such as perception and reason, it is no different. The thing is that we get to know God by the means of faith and not by the means of reason. Albeit, as I mentioned before, faith and reason are complementary. There is no Science with no God, and there is no God without Science.

[Sandwich]

God obviously exists. We may not find any pragmatic proof to support our claim, but religious persons find it in faith. Faith is what keeps us believing there is a God. All of you that conclued that God does not exist because we find no scientific proof are way way wrong. If you didn´t know, Religion and Science complement each other. There are answers that cannot be found by science but are found by religion and the other way round.

God has to be searched by human beings, it will not come as something automatic. Deep thinking and reflection is necessary. God is a discipline manifested through the Bible that makes human beings live to the fullest. Everyone can find God, it just requires faith, faith and more faith. Faith is a form of knowledge such as perception and reason, it is no different. The thing is that we get to know God by the means of faith and not by the means of reason. Albeit, as I mentioned before, faith and reason are complementary. There is no Science with no God, and there is no God without Science.

Really? Faith basically means knowing something whilst having no evidence for it. God doesn't 'obviously' exist because faith is effectively a way of knowing with no actual knowledge to go with it. Unlike perception and reason, which are ways of knowing that depend on evidence. You can have faith in whatever your heart desires, be it god, fairies, shiny white unicorns and so on, but basically faith itself is simply the justification for how you say you have obtained the knowledge - and the definition of faith is more or less that actually you didn't exactly obtain the knowledge (as faith has no evidence), you just decided one day that it was true. In other words, faith doesn't really mean anything at all.

Answers that can't be found by science may well be 'found' by religion, but could equally be found (and possibly more in a more thrilling and interesting format) in a fantasy novel. There is zero reason why the story religion spins should be any more compelling than any other story we read. Why are we here? Well, actually, we're not, we're all just part of the Matrix...

Whether or not god does exist, the position of religion as a complement to science or as something 'obvious' and true is rubbish. The only 'evidence' for it is evidence that people invent for themselves. Intrinsically, Faith isn't so much a way of knowing as it is a way of not really having any clue so making it up as you go along.

This is my own position in a nutshell, 100% =P Only difference is that I'm personally not at a position where I'm ready to say God is irrelevant to me. My earlier participation in this thread and other debates on God I've had with friends and teachers has convinced me that religion is a topic I should just not engage in. I can't "win", I don't even know what a "win" would be, and every debate ends in the same way: everyone angry/agitated for reasons no one can ever articulate afterwards.

It is my position as well. However, I'd dispute the last thing you said - because whilst I find religion irrelevant (so in that respect I suppose I agree with Haley), I think that even if we can't ever answer the entire question one way or another (I find it almost more silly to suggest that you can disprove the existence of a god than its non-existence), it is possible to point out where things don't tie in together. The overall argument is a useless mush of anger, but at the same time people do say really daft and stupid things on the subject, on both sides, and whilst I find no value in the main argument, I find it hard to sit and read people making impossible claims, assumptions and so on. I think that that sort of debate IS worthwhile. Similarly I feel that I have no idea what the conclusion is: if somebody were to offer me compelling evidence one way or another, it would change my whole perspective. Engaging with it makes you realise a lot about your own thoughts and equally (in my opinion) lets you weight it up for yourself. It may be impossible to prove one way or another, but the balance of uncertainty is in my opinion greatly skewed towards there being no god, and engaging with other people's arguments and ideas has helped me form a better idea of what I actually feel about the matter to come to that conclusion.

[zwingli]

People who don't believe in God because there's not enough evidence or whatnot, also can't believe in science and the origin of the world. Both take the same leaps in faith.

[Sandwich]

People who don't believe in God because there's not enough evidence or whatnot, also can't believe in science and the origin of the world. Both take the same leaps in faith.

Going to have to disagree with this statement quite strongly. It's daft to say that something with evidence to support it takes the same leap of faith as something with absolutely no evidence to support or suggest it whatsoever. Care to explain?

[zwingli]

People who don't believe in God because there's not enough evidence or whatnot, also can't believe in science and the origin of the world. Both take the same leaps in faith.

Going to have to disagree with this statement quite strongly. It's daft to say that something with evidence to support it takes the same leap of faith as something with absolutely no evidence to support or suggest it whatsoever. Care to explain?

Well I'd have to ask you.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so why? What evidence is there to support it?

Do you believe in Evolution? Same questions as above.

You believe in these theories because "Scientists" have told you such, and maybe you've done some research behind these topics; but you cannot prove any of these things, you are not able to watch the process of evolution. So you rely on the evidence given to you by Scientists.

In the same way belief in a go, well i'm specifically talking about the Bible, comes from a reliance on the evidence for a God. This evidence is what is innately human, every human looks for a meaning in life, and this drive is what provides evidence for a 'bigger meaning'. The presence of 'love' and 'free will' also provides evidence for a God, the same thing that separates us from animals or being a bio-chemical being.

Note, I'm not saying that the process of either of those are false.

Edited June 14, 2011 by zwingli

[zwingli]

He explains it better than I do.

[Sandwich]

Well I'd have to ask you.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so why? What evidence is there to support it?

Do you believe in Evolution? Same questions as above.

You believe in these theories because "Scientists" have told you such, and maybe you've done some research behind these topics; but you cannot prove any of these things, you are not able to watch the process of evolution. So you rely on the evidence given to you by Scientists.

In the same way belief in a go, well i'm specifically talking about the Bible, comes from a reliance on the evidence for a God. This evidence is what is innately human, every human looks for a meaning in life, and this drive is what provides evidence for a 'bigger meaning'. The presence of 'love' and 'free will' also provides evidence for a God, the same thing that separates us from animals or being a bio-chemical being.

Note, I'm not saying that the process of either of those are false.

The main difference being that there IS evidence for evolution (very strong evidence) and marginally less complete and therefore less strong evidence for the big bang. I don't know enough about physics to feel that I could say I reckon the big bang occurred, myself.

The evidence for a god is a load of codswallop. It is incomprehensible to me why the presence of love and free will (or any of those other things) indicate a god. All they indicate is the presence of love and free will. I mean, the plastic bag in the middle of the road doesn't provide me with evidence that there are deep sea fish. It's not evidence at all because it does not indicate the conclusion that you have reached. The difference between scientific theories is that without solid evidence the theory has no credibility. It starts from a position of being false and then is proven or disproved. The thing with god is that you start out with a theory that by nature cannot be proven and then randomly decide to attribute unrelated things to the theory, which also cannot be proven. In terms of evidence those are poles apart.

Basically, I find the evidence for a god to be entirely useless because it has none of the hallmarks of evidence. It does not suggest, imply or lead to the conclusion. Whereas with scientific theories, whether or not we can see it happening in real time (and in terms of evolution, arguably we can see it on a small scale - especially in rapidly dividing things like bacteria) we have observations which suggest and lead us to the conclusion or lead us to discard it. In my opinion, you have one thing with no evidence and another thing with evidence. To say that both require the same leap of faith is a deep insult to the scientific theories, like me saying that van Gogh and my 2 year old cousin have the same artistic skill. They're just not even on the same level.

[zwingli]

Well I'd have to ask you.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so why? What evidence is there to support it?

Do you believe in Evolution? Same questions as above.

You believe in these theories because "Scientists" have told you such, and maybe you've done some research behind these topics; but you cannot prove any of these things, you are not able to watch the process of evolution. So you rely on the evidence given to you by Scientists.

In the same way belief in a go, well i'm specifically talking about the Bible, comes from a reliance on the evidence for a God. This evidence is what is innately human, every human looks for a meaning in life, and this drive is what provides evidence for a 'bigger meaning'. The presence of 'love' and 'free will' also provides evidence for a God, the same thing that separates us from animals or being a bio-chemical being.

Note, I'm not saying that the process of either of those are false.

The main difference being that there IS evidence for evolution (very strong evidence) and marginally less complete and therefore less strong evidence for the big bang. I don't know enough about physics to feel that I could say I reckon the big bang occurred, myself.

The evidence for a god is a load of codswallop. It is incomprehensible to me why the presence of love and free will (or any of those other things) indicate a god. All they indicate is the presence of love and free will. I mean, the plastic bag in the middle of the road doesn't provide me with evidence that there are deep sea fish. It's not evidence at all because it does not indicate the conclusion that you have reached. The difference between scientific theories is that without solid evidence the theory has no credibility. It starts from a position of being false and then is proven or disproved. The thing with god is that you start out with a theory that by nature cannot be proven and then randomly decide to attribute unrelated things to the theory, which also cannot be proven. In terms of evidence those are poles apart.

Basically, I find the evidence for a god to be entirely useless because it has none of the hallmarks of evidence. It does not suggest, imply or lead to the conclusion. Whereas with scientific theories, whether or not we can see it happening in real time (and in terms of evolution, arguably we can see it on a small scale - especially in rapidly dividing things like bacteria) we have observations which suggest and lead us to the conclusion or lead us to discard it. In my opinion, you have one thing with no evidence and another thing with evidence. To say that both require the same leap of faith is a deep insult to the scientific theories, like me saying that van Gogh and my 2 year old cousin have the same artistic skill. They're just not even on the same level.

Well I don't know if you watched the video or not, but the way it seems to me. You're 'evidence' is something that you can see or feel; or at least what others have told you they can see and feel. Am I right? So if you're looking for physical evidence, then naturally you won't find what you're looking for. The evidence isn't tangible, it's spiritual.

Once again, i'll direct you to a video that has some answers:

http://www.youtube.com/user/askcliffe#p/u/1/MddFZoTXaog

Well actually, I could sum up a few reasons.

1. Order and Design point to an intelligent mind. - Random nature can't create Order

2. The Universe is not eternal, so it has a beginning, so it has a cause. - Causation comes from somewhere or something, in this case God.

3. Life is balanced on a "razor edge" - All the variables involved in the creation and sustainability of life point to an intelligent design. Can't be produced by chaos, or to be fair the probability is 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000you get my drift

4. Darwin himself said: If something is irreducibly complex, the whole idea of evolution by chance or fate is impossible. Irreducibly complexity basically means that if you don't have all the in between states you can't get the final product. You can't jump from wood to a door basically, or a living cell.

5. The presence of moral absolutes - No moral absolutes means its all relative, so there would be no God. e.g. Killing and raping little children is always wrong. "You shouldn't have done that" - You're appealing to a higher being.

6. Love (I said this already) - But Love shows that we are not just matter and energy, living out biological processes.

7. Rational Minds - Points to a rational God. Rational cannot come from Irrational. Darwin said aswell: If it's true that our minds are just highly developed monkey minds, why do we trust it to tell us the truth. Would you trust a monkey? A rational mind cannot come from an irrational being.

8. The search for a meaning in life. - If you conclude that life has a meaning, it must have come from somewhere - a God. If your life is meaningless then you might as well kill yourself, why would you? - A statement also made by Albert Camus. If you don't consider suicide you're not being intellectually consistent.

9. Historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. - Lots of secular historical evidence backing this up, not just the Gospels.

10. Life doesn't come from Non-Life - I've never seen it happen, noone has ever seen it happen. This is the biggest leap of faith you can ever have.

[Kudzai Mukaratirwa]

GOD : 'Generator Operator Destructor'

There is nearly no evidence to support the existence of GOD. But some people really claim that GOD exists, by telling that they have seen him. Unless there is strong evidence to support the statement, you cannot consider it as 'truth'. But still mass majority of people live with the blind belief that GOD exists. What do you think, does GOD exist? Or humans just do not want to accept the truth due to 'neediness', by thinking if i pray to GOD, then i will get the thing i want.

its a question of your interpretation not "neediness" you are basically saying what we cannot see we shall not believe and that is narrow minded to be frank.....we cant even prove toms exist because we can't really say what protons and neutrons are because they are waves and waves are not tangible and cannot be seen to u have basically said waves dont exit simply because " there is no evidence" to support their existence we can only see their effects in the same case us christians have the bible as our evidence u have random effects that could be from anywhere.....u simply know what you've read and have know proof so you cant disregard those who have faith because you yourself have faith...faith in science and only having evidence in wht others have led u to believe is true...even though you cannot prove it... and you dont get wat you want simply because you believe in God or else why would the poor have any reason to believe in their recurring cycle of poverty

[Kudzai Mukaratirwa]

Well I'd have to ask you.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so why? What evidence is there to support it?

Do you believe in Evolution? Same questions as above.

You believe in these theories because "Scientists" have told you such, and maybe you've done some research behind these topics; but you cannot prove any of these things, you are not able to watch the process of evolution. So you rely on the evidence given to you by Scientists.

In the same way belief in a go, well i'm specifically talking about the Bible, comes from a reliance on the evidence for a God. This evidence is what is innately human, every human looks for a meaning in life, and this drive is what provides evidence for a 'bigger meaning'. The presence of 'love' and 'free will' also provides evidence for a God, the same thing that separates us from animals or being a bio-chemical being.

Note, I'm not saying that the process of either of those are false.

The main difference being that there IS evidence for evolution (very strong evidence) and marginally less complete and therefore less strong evidence for the big bang. I don't know enough about physics to feel that I could say I reckon the big bang occurred, myself.

The evidence for a god is a load of codswallop. It is incomprehensible to me why the presence of love and free will (or any of those other things) indicate a god. All they indicate is the presence of love and free will. I mean, the plastic bag in the middle of the road doesn't provide me with evidence that there are deep sea fish. It's not evidence at all because it does not indicate the conclusion that you have reached. The difference between scientific theories is that without solid evidence the theory has no credibility. It starts from a position of being false and then is proven or disproved. The thing with god is that you start out with a theory that by nature cannot be proven and then randomly decide to attribute unrelated things to the theory, which also cannot be proven. In terms of evidence those are poles apart.

Basically, I find the evidence for a god to be entirely useless because it has none of the hallmarks of evidence. It does not suggest, imply or lead to the conclusion. Whereas with scientific theories, whether or not we can see it happening in real time (and in terms of evolution, arguably we can see it on a small scale - especially in rapidly dividing things like bacteria) we have observations which suggest and lead us to the conclusion or lead us to discard it. In my opinion, you have one thing with no evidence and another thing with evidence. To say that both require the same leap of faith is a deep insult to the scientific theories, like me saying that van Gogh and my 2 year old cousin have the same artistic skill. They're just not even on the same level.

Well I don't know if you watched the video or not, but the way it seems to me. You're 'evidence' is something that you can see or feel; or at least what others have told you they can see and feel. Am I right? So if you're looking for physical evidence, then naturally you won't find what you're looking for. The evidence isn't tangible, it's spiritual.

Once again, i'll direct you to a video that has some answers:

http://www.youtube.com/user/askcliffe#p/u/1/MddFZoTXaog

well science is just a bunch of assumptions and probability discovered and proved by very very few people and lacking greatly in evidence the easiest whole to pick in this is atoms they are particles we are made of !! they are made of waves "quarks" waves are not tangible so therefore we are not tangible because we are made of atoms !....but science "assumes" we are so you assume they are correct when there is sooooo much evidence against it its unbelievable most atheists think its easier to believe that these huge anomolies like inter atomic spaces and quarks which they cannot explain at all or tell what they re they just class them to support what they believe because it would be stupid to put them selves down so they support their nonsense.....the bible is a collection of history of things we were not there but others were others witnessed these things and they still happen today things like the structure of " laminin" aren''t mere coincidences faith is not blind faith but you can only feel it in our heart just like any other emotion and last time i checked atoms if they exist dont emit emotions

Edited June 15, 2011 by Summer Glau
no text speak!

[Kudzai Mukaratirwa]

you cant disprove Gods existence He is real and he doesnt need to be seen by everyone to know that he exists , look until the scientific world can explain what little they know about everything like they cannot even prove the existence of atoms its merely an assumption based on probability that are made to fit scientists beleifs so until you have any sigificant evidence that God does not exist and everything science has discovered is real there is no point in saying anything

HL maths chemistry biology

SL english french business studies

Edited June 15, 2011 by Summer Glau
no text speak!

[Proletariat]

you cant disprove Gods existence He is real and h doesnt need to be seen by everyone to know that he exists , look until the scientific world can explain what little they know about everything like they cannot even prove the existence of atoms its merely an assumption based on probability that are made to fit scientists beleifs so until u have any sigificant evidence that God does not exist and everything science has discovered is real there is no point in saying anything

HL maths chemistry biology

SL english french business studies

You know the aim of science isn't about proving the nonexistence of something, right? Science doesn't allow for proving the nonexistence of anything. "Taunting" the fact that science can't disprove God's potential existence is showing a lack of understanding for what science is. Using either the words "prove" or "disprove" in a discussion about God shows a lack of understanding for what God is.