Do you believe in God?

[Joey D]

Isn't it pretty much impossible to prove something doesn't exist? Unless we could time travel and then look at the Earth and see what happened

You would prove that god didn't exist by answering all the unanswered questions.

 

[Duke]

If you believe the story of Jesus as explained in the Bible, He did appear.

That's the million dollar statement though isn't it? If you believe the story of Jesus.

Mighty thin on the ground these last 2000 years. I wonder why? God was all over the place for quite a while there, creating things, burning bushes, deporting Adam and Eve, delivering Commandments, smiting Sodom and Gomorrah, testing Job, etc. etc. etc.

These were all very direct and personal acts. I don't mean a little stigmata or speaking in tongues; I mean real part-the-Red-Sea-and-make-pillars-of-salt stuff.

Why hasn't that kind of action been seen in modern times? If God was so willing to prove himself so directly back then, why is he hiding now? I know my theory, but I'd be interested to hear one of the faithful answer it without resorting to "mysterious ways".

But I think that most here have dug-in pretty well and will not be moved, either way... Now, that is not going work, we do not represent those they respect and could believe on a subject so ingrained. A lost cause.

If I can help a person see reason and logic, it's worth the effort. I realize that religious people may say the same thing. However, there are two major differences:

• I'm not knocking on doors and distributing pamphlets on Why You Should Become An Atheist Now, and
• I can demonstrate logic and reason and reality. I can show that reality exists, so I've got an actual product to sell, not vaporware. They cannot demonstrate God.

An annecdote:
A cousin of mine believed in Santa Clause (or rather its Dutch counter part) until he was 12 y/o.

Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet FTW. I still leave carrots out for Majestik.

I'm not sure that's true of most athiests, myself included. If any evidence was offered with proof of God, afterlife etc., then my view would change.

Me too - show me the deity and I'll show you the belief. It just doesn't work the other way round.

If evidence was produced that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt god didn't exist do you really think Christians would believe it? Probably not.

Remember, you cannot ever prove God doesn't exist, which leaves a permanent loophole. That's part of the reason the idea is so tenacious.

 

[Rhino_WJB]

I'm not unwilling to believe there's more out there, be it God, Q, or what ever. But I do not expect any proof of that, not in my lifetime anyway.

There is a common means test for this, as described in "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Preposition: a scale of 1 to 7 of belief. 1 is absolute *knowing* that God exists, 4 is undecided either way, and 7 is absolute *knowing* that God does not exist.

If I put myself in 7, it makes me as close-minded as those in 1. How can I prove that God does not exist? Presently I cannot, therefor I have to be a 6, which leaves some room for any future proof on the existence of God. Anyone in either 1 or 7 needs to have a very long conversation with themselves!

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

You would prove that god didn't exist by answering all the unanswered questions.

But then they could say that God made it that way.

 

[Joey D]

But then they could say that God made it that way.

I know, and that was my point. You could essential prove there is no God and people would still say there is.

 

[Denur]

... However, there are two major differences:

• ... , and
• I can demonstrate logic and reason and reality. I can show that reality exists, so I've got an actual product to sell, not vaporware. ... .

That's where you're wrong. They are doing the very same. Or rather, they are trying to and failing miserably.

 

[Duke]

That's where you're wrong. They are doing the very same. Or rather, they are trying to and failing miserably.

...which is what makes it different. There is an objective reality each of us can see, touch, smell, taste, hear. God, however, may or may not exist, but in either case can only be detected by people who have already decided to believe in him.

I would also rate myself a 6 on the Dawkins Scale, for precisely the logic presented by Rhino_WJB above.

 

[Pako]

Mighty thin on the ground these last 2000 years. I wonder why? God was all over the place for quite a while there, creating things, burning bushes, deporting Adam and Eve, delivering Commandments, smiting Sodom and Gomorrah, testing Job, etc. etc. etc.

These were all very direct and personal acts. I don't mean a little stigmata or speaking in tongues; I mean real part-the-Red-Sea-and-make-pillars-of-salt stuff.

Why hasn't that kind of action been seen in modern times? If God was so willing to prove himself so directly back then, why is he hiding now? I know my theory, but I'd be interested to hear one of the faithful answer it without resorting to "mysterious ways".

I understand what you're saying and the point you are trying to make.

(This is only my opinion) Once Jesus came to Earth, there was no need for for God to interact in the manner that was evident in the Old Testament. The prophecy of the Messiah had been fulfilled, He died for all of mankind, washing away all the sins of humanity, offering His forgiveness to anyone who might believe.

John 14:16 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

In this verse, Jesus describes himself as the mediator between us and God. From reading the Old Testament, this is a good thing, there is comfort in knowing that.

 

[Danoff]

I understand what you're saying and the point you are trying to make.

(This is only my opinion) Once Jesus came to Earth, there was no need for for God to interact in the manner that was evident in the Old Testament. The prophecy of the Messiah had been fulfilled, He died for all of mankind, washing away all the sins of humanity, offering His forgiveness to anyone who might believe.

John 14:16 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

In this verse, Jesus describes himself as the mediator between us and God. From reading the Old Testament, this is a good thing, there is comfort in knowing that.

I want you to close your eyes and imagine that Jesus was a man. Not a prophet or 1/3 of God, but just a man. And think about what you just said - that only he can talk to god for you. That he, a man, commands you with the authority of god, and that you should worship him - a man - as if he were a god.

Why did I ask you to imaging that? Because I'm trying to help you understand what it sounds like to an Atheist or a follower of just about any other religion.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

In my experience it is absolutely false.
Sorry, but I'd like to know:

As a man that uses reason and logic, what makes you "believe"?
Faith? Any kind of reversed logic? Proof?

Because as I have repeatedly pointed out, the content of it is unlike anything else I have read, studied or examined. The more I examine
it the more it appeals to my logic. It has a profound correlatable truth and understanding of every aspect of man and his exsistance that I do not see anywhere else. It seems to fit like nothing else. It provides a viable solution like nothing else. Now why it does that for me, and not apparently someone else I don't know. I do perceive that some are maybe not as objective as claimed to be. When I approach it, its not from a stand point of any, well this, what about that, blah, blah, blah. I don't give a flip about any of that.
Can I identify with it? Is the content of it plausible in an application sense.
Does it provide a viable solution? Is it correlatable? Does it have a profoundness of explanation or wisdom to it. If it does then my logic says it validates itself, regaurdless of all the other possibilities. Like I said earlier, the way its written it either is all it claims to be or it isn't. My logic says it is.

 

[Pako]

I want you to close your eyes and imagine that Jesus was a man. Not a prophet or 1/3 of God, but just a man. And think about what you just said - that only he can talk to god for you. That he, a man, commands you with the authority of god, and that you should worship him - a man - as if he were a god.

Why did I ask you to imaging that? Because I'm trying to help you understand what it sounds like to an Atheist or a follower of just about any other religion.

Oh for sure, no debate there. If I didn't believe that Jesus was who he said he was, I'd be on the other side of the fence in a flash.

I would challenge you to do the same, but instead of Jesus just being a man, imagine him as the Son of God with the authority to grant forgiveness of all your sins and acceptance of all your short comings with eternal life as the reward of your belief.

That might give you some insight into the mind and emotion of a Christ follower.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Just a silly question: Has anyone, in all these pages, said: "geez, you may be right, I should reconsider my believe (or lack thereof)"?

Speaking of this and Logic, I find it truly amazing that when considering the possiblity of potentially the most important decision a person could make, proof or no proof, the complete dismissal of some to not take it more seriously and further than the history and the moment of there perceived exsistance. Clearly the question is beyond that.



EDIT: Even the logic of something as simple and profound as Pascal's Wager bounces off some like a BB off a flat rock.

 

[Joel]

I am probably about a 6 on the Dawkins scale. If I saw proof, I would believe. I went to a catholic school from Kindergarten to grade 8, and I am currently in a catholic high school.
Is it just me, or is the reasoning for God's existence a load of crap? My teacher's reasoning, was that the Universe came from God, and he couldn't stay in his creation. her analogy was saying "if I build something, I can't be inside it" I just kinda went "house?" "shed"? "car"? you get the idea. One good argument against God i've heard, Is that Genesis allegedly occurred about 7-8 thousand years ago, If this was the "creation of the universe", how are there Galaxies, and Celestial bodies further than 7000 light years away? Now, please don't just say "God is all powerful it says so in the Bible".


Now, I have to say that going to a Catholic school has left a bitter taste in my mouth about Christianity, and I am sick of how they just ram it down kid's throats before they are old enough to reason. I would definitely agree with Jesus's teachings, you know, Love yourself, and Love others. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Good stuff. I guess you could say that I'm a "Christian Atheist" I believe in Jesus's teachings, but he was just a man, not 1/3 of God.

 

[orimarc]

Because as I have repeatedly pointed out, the content of it is unlike anything else I have read, studied or examined.
*A lot of words I don't need to quote*
My logic says it is.

So it's option b) then. A kind of reversed logic. "It makes sense to me, so it's true." That's the problem. For an athesist, "The Bible" sounds like this:

"Woman called Maria has an adventure, that resuslts in Jesus. Tells her man Joseph that she's a virgin and that an Angel did it. Jesus grows up and tells a lot of lies. 12 stupid guys believe him and start worshiping him. He tells lies and more lies, like that "He's the son of God". He continues to tell lies and lies and lies until he dies at the cross. And because of that, all people born from that day have to forgive for their sins?. More lies. People continue to write things he "did" because someone else told them."

 

[Rhino_WJB]

INow, I have to say that going to a Catholic school has left a bitter taste in my mouth about Christianity, and I am sick of how they just ram it down kid's throats before they are old enough to reason.

This comment reminded me of a recent visit I made to a local junior school (occasionally I am required to visit schools during the course of my work).

On this occasion, the school in question was a faith school. Upon entering the building, I saw posters on the wall made by the children with such slogans as "God is great" and "God created everything". Books were all around, cartoon-like and obviously for children of this age, confirming this. There was some activity going on in the hall, and I felt like bursting in and yelling, "Stop! We need some balance!" (not literally, you understand).

Sorry to mention Dawkins again, but again here he is leading the way. One goal of his is to raise consciousness with regards to labeling children, which I fully support. I am also very pleased to read that Dawkins is writing a number of books, aimed at children, that will offer reasoning and science. Will these books find there way into my local faith school? I very much doubt it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So it's option b) then. A kind of reversed logic. "It makes sense to me, so it's true." That's the problem. For an athesist, "The Bible" sounds like this:

"Woman called Maria has an adventure, that resuslts in Jesus. Tells her man Joseph that she's a virgin and that an Angel did it. Jesus grows up and tells a lot of lies. 12 stupid guys believe him and start worshiping him. He tells lies and more lies, like that "He's the son of God". He continues to tell lies and lies and lies until he dies at the cross. And because of that, all people born from that day have to forgive for their sins?. More lies. People continue to write things he "did" because someone else told them."

Exactly. The objectivity of your logic stops at the perceived impossibility.
Or in other words "with man this is impossible".
But thats not the question.
The question is: If GOD does exsist and he is who he claims to be, is it possible? And also does this plan that was executed have validity, is it correlatable, does it fit the bill? Or in other words does it solve the problem?

 

[Duke]

But the thing you don't seem to get is: believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Cthulu, Zeus, or some other unimagined supreme being also solves the problem. If you define the Creator as having made us the way we are, of course we are the way the Creator made us.

It's completely circular logic that is 100% self-referential.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But the thing you don't seem to get is: believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Cthulu, Zeus, or some other unimagined supreme being also solves the problem.

No, I don't agree. Not all of those things explain anything, are correlatable, solve anything, enlighten anything, fit anything, identify with anything, provide anything, except one that I know of.

I'm perplexed at your apparent conclusion, that if you believe in something "Super-Natural" that you must believe in everything in that category.

If you define the Creator as having made us the way we are, of course we are the way the Creator made us.

I don't define it, I let him do it. He's the one that claims to be GOD.

So I read what he claims to have written, to see for myself if he really knows man like he says he does. The more I read the more it appears he knows us better than we know ourselves. I find that " very interesting". I am intrigued so I read some more. Eventually I come to the conclusion that I can't off hand dismiss some of the points he makes, and of some the things he says.
I read some more . I see where he challenges me," he says test me , prove me" see if I am not who I say I am. I find this very intriguing and unusual.
I also see, we are like him and he is like us,(albeit on another dimensional scale) or as he put it "made in his image". The more I read and the further I go, while there is much I don't understand, the more engrossed I am in the possibilities of this whole concept. Finally I have to conclude or I can't deny that there is something to this. It is too different, too profound, and unlike some of you, I also cannot dismiss all the people who lay claim to it. Who claim they know it as a reality. This is like it or not, part of the objective examination process. It has to be wieghed along with the rest. Even and recommendably so, with some degree skepticism, but not predetermination.

It's completely circular logic thatis 100% self-referential.

Again I disagree. Its circular but not 100% self-referential.
Rather it is: "From him to you" and "you to him".

 

[Famine]

If you let him, John Edward will tell you things about your departed relatives you thought only you knew.


It doesn't mean he has tapped through to the afterlife - although it does mean he's a giant douche.

 

[Small_Fryz]

2.1 billion are christian
1.5 billion are Islam
900 million are Hinduism

Many people believe each one.. who is right? who is wrong? Personally i think which one you "believe" depends where you grow up and your influences.

I have failed to see any attempt by someone who believes in the bible prove that the other religions are wrong..., or should i say that Billions of followers just like them selves are incorrect and they are somehow correct.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If you let him, John Edward will tell you things about your departed relatives you thought only you knew.


It doesn't mean he has tapped through to the afterlife - although it does mean he's a giant douche.

"Even and recommendably so, with some degree skepticism"

I refer to those, who claim to be Christians. However it goes without saying it is applicable to other things as well.

2.1 billion are christian
1.5 billion are Islam
900 million are Hinduism

Many people believe each one.. who is right? who is wrong? Personally i think which one you "believe" depends where you grow up and your influences.

I have failed to see any attempt by someone who believes in the bible prove that the other religions are wrong..., or should i say that Billions of followers just like them selves are incorrect and they are somehow correct.

Influences, demographics, etc., ultimately its still up to each individual to analyze and decide.

 

[kieren1888]

Yes, i pesonally believe in the God. Thats my belief.

 

[Duke]

No, I don't agree. Not all of those things explain anything,

Like the world being made in 6 days, a mere 7,000 years ago? Is that explaining it with any degree of accuracy at all?

...are correlatable,

You mean, correlatable, like the parts of the Bible that directly contradict each other?

Or you mean correlatable, like where we were forbidden to eat shellfish and required to stone homosexuals to death, but now we can chow down on lobster and just tell the homos to not be gay?

...solve anything,

What has religion ever solved? What? Has it ended sin? Has it ended conflict? Has it solved disagreement?

I maintain that religion has created more of those things than it has ever "solved".

...enlighten anything,

Yeah, burning the Library of Alexandria enlightened people real well. You do realize that little bit of faith-driven vandalism set the human race back about a thousand years in terms of technology, medicine, science, and art.

Ask Galileo how good it feels to be "enlightened".

...fit anything,

Oh, you mean "fit", like the Creation story "fits" the fossil record? Like the animals mentioned in the Bible "fit" the existence of dinosaurs? Like 2 of every species on Earth (which number in the millions for insects alone) "fit" in a wooden boat made by a guy and a couple of his sons?

I could go on, but I assume you get the point.

...identify with anything, provide anything, except one that I know of.

What has faith provided in the big picture? Has faith provided peace and plenty? Has faith provided understanding? Has faith provided technology and medicine?

Faith has provided some individual people with perceived security and insulation against the difficulties of life. But on a much larger scale, it has also provided utterly pointless warfare and conflict. And it has done nothing about disease or hunger.

I'm perplexed at your apparent conclusion, that if you believe in something "Super-Natural" that you must believe in everything in that category.

I'll try to explain this one more time:

• There is no physical, measurable evidence that god exists in any form.
• The only evidence that the Judeo-Christian God exists is found in the scripture of the Bible, and this is not evidence at all, but merely a written assertion that He exists in this form.
• Other religions also have holy texts that assert that their version of God is correct.
• The amount of physical, measurable evidence in favor of each version is equal: zero.
• Therefore, in choosing to decide for the existence of one version, you have absolutely no data to choose against any of the other version.

Once you choose to believe in one thing without any data, you have no logical reason not to believe to believe in other things without data.

As a smart man once said: "Once you truly understand why you dismiss everyone else's gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I don't define it, I let him do it. He's the one that claims to be GOD.

...in the Bible. With no evidence other than the Bible itself. With no strength to the claim other than the claim itself. With no proof the Bible was not written by plain, ordinary men, without divine inspiration. Man defined the God and defined sin, so of course they defined the way to avoid their sin as following their God.

So I read what he claims to have written, to see for myself if he really knows man like he says he does. The more I read the more it appears he knows us better than we know ourselves.

So we're bad because an uppity angel with horns and a tail tricks us into being bad? It doesn't seem to me that the author of that story knows anything about human psychology.

...unlike some of you, I also cannot dismiss all the people who lay claim to it. Who claim they know it as a reality. This is like it or not, part of the objective examination process. It has to be wieghed along with the rest.

Almost the entire population of the world used to believe the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around our planet. Why should that massive quantity of belief affect the reality of the truth in any way?

Again I disagree. Its circular but not 100% self-referential.
Rather it is: "From him to you" and "you to him".

But it is self-referential: it only exists within the system of religion you happen to believe. You cannot demonstrate the existence of God with anything other than your repeated assertion that He exists. You read a book that proclaims itself to be true, and say that claim proves itself to be true. It is a closed system of circular reasoning that goes nowhere beyond itself.

 

[Blitz187]

2.1 billion are christian
1.5 billion are Islam
900 million are Hinduism

Many people believe each one.. who is right? who is wrong? Personally i think which one you "believe" depends where you grow up and your influences.

I have failed to see any attempt by someone who believes in the bible prove that the other religions are wrong..., or should i say that Billions of followers just like them selves are incorrect and they are somehow correct.

Just a small question out of curiousity. Is Buddhism not a big enough religion to add to that list? Or did you not add that on purpose since there is "evidence" that Buddha really existed 500 years before christ. This is why when I visit my family in Thailand its 2552 right now... They are living in the future

 

[Denur]

I don't define it, I let him do it. He's the one that claims to be GOD.

So I read what he claims to have written, to see for myself if he really knows man like he says he does. The more I read the more it appears he knows us better than we know ourselves. I find that " very interesting". I am intrigued so I read some more. Eventually I come to the conclusion that I can't off hand dismiss some of the points he makes, and of some the things he says.
I read some more . I see where he challenges me," he says test me , prove me" see if I am not who I say I am. I find this very intriguing and unusual.
I also see, we are like him and he is like us,(albeit on another dimensional scale) or as he put it "made in his image". The more I read and the further I go, while there is much I don't understand, the more engrossed I am in the possibilities of this whole concept. Finally I have to conclude or I can't deny that there is something to this. It is too different, too profound, and unlike some of you, I also cannot dismiss all the people who lay claim to it. Who claim they know it as a reality. This is like it or not, part of the objective examination process. It has to be wieghed along with the rest. Even and recommendably so, with some degree skepticism, but not predetermination.

I can appreciate this, to a certain extend that is.

If I understand your post correctly, you claim to have read the Bible with an open mind and came more and more convinced that the Book must have been written by a god (whatever a god is, there are quite a few definitions around).

Any Great Manipulator can achieve the same thing though, through scripture, speech and/or actions. Throughout the ages there are plenty of examples of people with this ability, like Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler, Bhagwan, Koresh, Copperfield and Geller. Just to name a few and each with his (where are the women?) own agenda, be it good, evil or merely entertainement.

I remember an experiment with a class of students who had to qualify their personal horoscope. They were amazed how well their own horoscope fit their person and were even more amazed when it turned out that all had been given the very same horoscope.

It is so very easy, for some, to make belief so many people anything you want them to believe. And the person(s) who wrote the Bible was among them. That is what I believe, strongly.

You've been had my friend, but if believing in your God and all He stands for, makes you a happy person, that's fine by me.

 

[Pako]

I can appreciate this, to a certain extend that is.

If I understand your post correctly, you claim to have read the Bible with an open mind and came more and more convinced that the Book must have been written by a god (whatever a god is, there are quite a few definitions around).

Any Great Manipulator can achieve the same thing though, through scripture, speech and/or actions. Throughout the ages there are plenty of examples of people with this ability, like Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler, Bhagwan, Koresh, Copperfield and Geller. Just to name a few and each with his (where are the women?) own agenda, be it good, evil or merely entertainement.

I remember an experiment with a class of students who had to qualify their personal horoscope. They were amazed how well their own horoscope fit their person and were even more amazed when it turned out that all had been given the very same horoscope.

It is so very easy, for some, to make belief so many people anything you want them to believe. And the person(s) who wrote the Bible was among them. That is what I believe, strongly.

You've been had my friend, but if believing in your God and all He stands for, makes you a happy person, that's fine by me.

I would respectfully disagree with you. It sounds like God is actively making good on his promise to SuperCobraJet. 👍

 

[WolfRacer543]

I do believe in God, have since I was about, ohhh, 15. Some people would say we believe in God because we have been fooled or are insecure, but I'd argue that about Atheism too.

People love to cling to things scientists have said and claim it as evidence that God doesn't exist. Even stuff like evolution, you believe it because someone told you that it was true and you believed them... all it means is they told it to you in a convincing enough way at a time when you were open to the idea. People aren't stupid, they wont believe something for no reason, they'll believe it because they were raised to believe it, someone convinced them of it, or they have some deep down need to believe it.

That said I haven't been to church in a long time, but that's to do with my getting sick of the people rather than not believing in God.

 

[Famine]

I do believe in God, have since I was about, ohhh, 15. Some people would say we believe in God because we have been fooled or are insecure, but I'd argue that about Atheism too.

People love to cling to things scientists have said and claim it as evidence that God doesn't exist. Even stuff like evolution, you believe it because someone told you that it was true and you believed them... all it means is they told it to you in a convincing enough way at a time when you were open to the idea. People aren't stupid, they wont believe something for no reason, they'll believe it because they were raised to believe it, someone convinced them of it, or they have some deep down need to believe it.

I don't suppose you've read a single word in this thread that Duke, danoff or I have written about "things scientists have said" and how they are repeatable, demonstrable and require no belief at all because they actually exist independantly of whether you believe them or not?

 

[WolfRacer543]

I don't suppose you've read a single word in this thread that Duke, danoff or I have written about "things scientists have said" and how they are repeatable, demonstrable and require no belief at all because they actually exist independantly of whether you believe them or not?

I have skipped a lot of it, so probably I have But I study engineering and have done my share of physics in the process. In that time I've met several physics professors who are still open to the idea that a large portion of what they've studied is wrong. One even said in a lecture (topic being Schrodinger's wave equation) that all we have are "models" of reality and the creator is probably sitting laughing at the guesses we are making.

If I have time I'll look back over what you guys have posted and I'm sure I'd have something to say about it. From my experience much of science, even experimental science is extrapolation of ideas based on the limited observations we can make.

 

[Brend]

Yup. Period.