The Existence of God

I will believe in God when I am given solid, factual evidence that it is there.

The strong religious people are playing it on the safe side, in case there happens to be a God, who will send them to the best possible place after death. But, what would be the point if it turns out there is no God, and you spent a good majority of your life praying to a being that was never there?

The Atheists play it on the intellectual side, and base what they believe mostly on experiments, theorizing, and logic. If there happens to be a God though....well, they're screwed, unless God respects rationality and logic, and forgives them for their 'sins'.

I, on the other hand, am a part of a neutral party. If there is substantial evidence that it is there, I will believe in God. Otherwise, It's Atheism. I'm going to stick around for a bit, check in on these arguments, and maybe participate in them. This is a very interesting topic to me.

 

The thing is kid, is even Atheists don't actually have anything definitive on the way the earth was created. Anyone who thinks that the Big Bang Theory is 100% accurate would be kidding themselves. That is why we do indeed theorize. Theorizing something, mind, actually requires thought and effort. We don't just grab a concept and say "Hey! This happened and you need to believe us!" Like most religions do.

Also, whoever said the entire universe came from something as small as a germ? My theory is that matter is absolute. Everything that exists today has always existed - just in a different form. It is commonly known scientific law that matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, only modified via process of fission and fusion. Therefore, in my theory, everything you know now has always existed. If you can't comprehend how, perhaps you ought to read up on the scientific law of the conservation of mass.

I, like Shredderbeam, am willing to accept evidence if it is feasible. If you have evidence of a God, please provide it. However, the only way religious people argue is by what I consider invalid logic, and that is why I don't accept what they say. If you provide empirical evidence of your claims, I'm open to have my belief changed. However, I severely doubt that any of you can provide evidence, as something that doesn't exist can't provide evidence of either it's existence nor non-existence. This goes without saying that I can't provide proof of the non-existence of such an entity - THAT is the task of the believer in this argument: to provide proof of the existence of such an entity.

 

Atheism is the rejection of the idea of God/Theism. What you described is not atheism.

 

It bothers me how people are being so stubborn in this thread. "No proof no god!" they say.

God is not something you can see. You can only experience him spiritually. I for one have had a number of those experiences. They are amazing, and I wouldn't trade them for all the money in the world.

Don't criticize other people's beliefs just because there isn't picture proof. Nor a logical explanation.

You are free to your own opinion, but until you give it a chance.. you have no right to tell us we are wrong.

~Forever Christian.

 

Haha, now look who's being stubborn. The last words "Forever Christian" pretty much contradict your first sentence.

I for one would like to see proof of these spiritual encounters. I've actually had rather lucid and vivid dreams of strange experiences, but I don't hold them as fact.

Thirdly, this is the debate forum. If you don't like beliefs being challenged, get out. If you want to take part in this debate, we have EVERY right to tell you you're wrong. Oh, and I was a Christian for the majority of my life. I find it complete and utter bullshit.

 

They reject it based on logic and fact, do they not? That is what I described.

 

What you described as your own personal belief rests towards being Agnostic, not Atheist.

 

I don't know fo sho. There should be a "maybe"

 

I believe this is called Agnosticism. You are an Agnostic.

 

yes i love u santa !
course no... where da hell is da proofz !

btw go to:
http://www.god.lt < - proofs that there is no god ! Dievo nera = No God !

 

Wtf...all that is on that site is "Dievo nera"...thats no proof...

 

No, think that the bible is a fake and all that shit.

 

No one is truly ever "on the fence". Agnosticism is basically an "on the fence" deal, but people always lean one way or the other.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is a God, but I don't claim to have the knowledge of the existence of God. I don't know, but I'm leaning towards no.

Gnosticism = Knowledge
Theism = Belief

There's 4 groups:

Gnostic Atheist: Strong or "Fundamentalist"; claims to have knowledge of the nonexistence of God.
Agnostic Atheist: Weak or "Moderate"; Doesn't know if there is a God but believes there isn't.
Agnostic Theist: Weak or "Moderate"; Doesn't know if there is a God but believes there is.
Gnostic Theist: Strong or "Fundamentalist"; claims to have knowledge of the existence of God.

You have to ask, after a "maybe", whether they lean one way or the other.

 

Did any of these experiences take place when you were in a near-death state? If so, you may have been high on dimethyltriptamine, a potent hallucinogenic drug that is flooded into the brain on occasion.

 

Look, to end all arguments here and now, a simple one I usually use.

God of course, is supposed to be omnipotent (meaning he can create and control anything he wishes and there is nothing he can't do.)

But he can't. Because, God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. If he is able to create it, he obviously won't be able to lift it, because that was the purpose of which he made it. And by not being able to lift it, he is not omnipotent. If he can't create it, then there's something he can't do, right there. In both cases he will not be omnipotent. Of course, it doesn't have to be a rock... There are actually infinite things God cannot do. He can't make a burrito so hot he can't eat it (LOL) or make a puzzle so difficult he can't solve it. The list goes on and on, but it proves that God cannot be omnipotent. Those are the straight facts, how are you going to argue with it?


Bring it. Try. You can't.

 

There are thousands of religions. Some don't even state God as omnipotent. Only that God is the ultimate creator of man-kind, and all things that are. You didn't disprove God. You only stated the obvious answer to a stereotype that made no sense in the first place.

Come again.

 

Sorry, but I'm not talking about 'thousands of religions'. I'm talking about the Christian god, who IS supposed to be omnipotent. The Christian God is 95% of what people are talking about on this thread. So, I did disprove the supposedly "omnipotent" Christian God.

 

In this case, you are talking about 'thousands of religions'. There is more than one version of the Christian God, many of which are quite popular. So, again, no, you didn't.

 

You're really missing the point here. I'm disproving any god that is meant to be omnipotent. If you'd like to believe in gods that aren't, fine. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

I get what you're saying, however your origin point was that the Christian God was omnipotent. I was simply disproving that assumption.

Alas, yes, you're right. No God is omnipotent, however that's been established many times during this thread.