The Existence of God

Well, previously I mentioned beliefs, what I meant to say is theories, and they seem a bit logical. I'm not saying they are valid, I just think they make sense.

 

Or you still fear that you may be wrong, so you're unwilling to take a chance and say 'There is no giant teapot rotating around the moon'.

 

The irony is hilarious.

 

God exists, have some faith brothers and sisters. Anything is possible if you truly believe. Yes we can!

 

You do not belong here.

In this forum, you cannot say 'God is real'.

You need to back up your post with some kind of evidence or constructive debate.


Just on your post, 'Anything is possible if you truly believe.' What? Are you saying if I believe in a flying purple unicorn with sixty seven fingers and ninety six toes, that is both real and possible?

You have no evidence of your god's existence, and your blind faith is disturbing.

 

Clearly you've never heard of a pinata!

 

I think there is a God.

 

Being a Deist, I have a very different view of God.

I don't see him as some guy who decides if you go to heaven or hell, I see it as the matrix that holds everything together. God is what makes you want things, and we are all little pieces of God.

 

Then you are a Pantheist.

 

No... I am a Deist.

 

The way you described it, I dont think that's a deist.

A deist believes there is a god but he only set the universe in motion to put it on track to where it is today. That god gave the first push and from that point on never intervened.

 

No, agnostics don't necessarily believe in a god, but they do not say his existence is impossible. They won't make any claims either way.

This is restricted to a few of the modern Gods and the beliefs commonly held about them, but on a much larger scale does not refute the existence of a god.

Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament, has tendencies towards inflicting harm upon humans. Yahweh is notorious for its sensitive nature (easily insulted) and selfishness, and takes out its anger upon humanity VERY often.

There are a few claims even Christians could make about your claim. Here are a few:

First, let's assume there are two evils, moral and natural. Natural evils being those which exist naturally, such as diseases and mutations. Moral evils are those committed by humans, such as murder or stealing.

There are many defences, but I will list just 3. I do not agree with them, but they are certainly arguments that will be made and I want you to be prepared in future cases.

FREE WILL DEFENSE:

This defense covers only the moral evil, so the first thing you must do is point that out to the opposing party. The general idea is that God bestowed us with the ability to behave and think for ourselves in most things. To refute this defense, there are a few things you can do. Depending on how it is phrased, this defense relies upon the fact that God may in fact not be omni-potent. If phrased incorrectly, it claims that we can behave separately of God, but if phrased correctly, it says God could control us if he willed it, but gave us the gift of free will. Make sure to watch for this. Next, as previously stated, it does not explain natural evil, "evil" that exists in nature. This includes disease, mutations in birth, "natural" deaths, etc. Ask them about this, and they will most likely provide one of the next two arguments.

GREATER GOOD DEFENSE:

This is one of the most popular, and one of the most contentious defenses. It claims that all harm inflicted upon humanity is for the greater good, the greater good meaning that the rest of humanity will somehow be better off if the harm is inflicted. This does cover both moral and natural evils, as it invokes the will of God. If your opponent is advanced, he will claim that evil existencing causes happiness in humanity in general. How could we be happy about being in our wonderful circumstances if there was no point of reference? By invoking this argument, your opponent is sacrificing the omni-benevolence of god. It's hard to oppose it, as you will most likely be replied with "God works in mysterious ways," but when facing the common theist you can usually just point out multiple horrific cases of human rights infringements and they will back down, not wanting to seem like bad people. However, if they stick to their guns, they will claim that such events are necessary, though they will profess ignorance ("God works in mysterious ways").

NATURAL ORDER DEFENSE:

This is normally used by deists. It claims that there is a natural state of things, that can be used for good or evil. Things are essentially neutral, but some can be used for good or evil. For example, wood can be turned into paper for peace treaties, or it can be turned into a bat for an assault. It is lightly tied into the free will defense, and does explain both natural and moral evils. A bacteria may be beneficial, breaking down food for some creatures, or it may cause harm, in infections. This is the harder of the three to refute. If your opponent is deist, I can't help you as I know of no way to counter this for a desit. However, if your opponent is a member of a main-stream religion, you can use the same dispute for the greater good argument. It results in God not being omni-benevolent. Also, if you're opponent is inexperienced and phrases the defense incorrectly, you can catch them in sacrificing God's omniscience. This rarely happens, but if you're attentive you may be able to catch it.

Good luck, and use this well.

Dreams are very little evidence at all of there being a deity. If you have a dream, and the next day some aspects of it come to fluition, it may seem amazing. It may seem like you saw the future in your dreams. The fact is, the probability that some aspects of your dreams are bound to happen, depending on the specificity. If you had a dream that you went out with the girl you like, and the next day you ask her out and she says yes, the probability that it was going to happen was 50%, because the answer is either yes or no. It's always coincidence, and though it may seem amazing, the probabilities are actually a lot higher than you may think. However, if you dreamt that on January 12 of 2011, 34 people will die in a New York subway accident, told no one of it, did not cause it, and yet it still happened, I would have to revise my beliefs.

True. However, you can still be atheist and maintain this understanding. I understand that we may not prove or disprove God, but I find the likelihood that God exists to be to low for me to accept it. I therefore, with confidence, take the stance that he most likely does not exist. I will not say "He doesn't exist," I will simply say "The likelihood that a god exists, especially by most definitions, is far to low for me to pursue a religious belief."

You're a pantheist. Pantheism is the belief that Gop is not necessarily a poweful deity, but that it is the Universe and nature.

 

frankly i dont believe it for the simple fact that science dictates that there cant be an "alpha and omega" this magical being couldnt of just appeared out of nowhere. i believe that you can either believe in science. or believe in religion.

priests with cellphones are hypocritical >.>

 

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

 

I don't believe so, soley because I don't want there to be a god.
Similar to how some people believe so, Just because they want there to be one.

 

Actually, he had it right with saying impossible. What I think he meant was that agnostics don't claim there is or isn't a god, but rather accept that either could be possible.

Science is just a word we use to describe a methodology, I don't understand how you can say god "created" science. Man kind through science has found answers themselves to questions about our universe and existence.

 

So you're saying that a god had to put them into place?

 

Just because we may not have an answer for everything yet, doesn't mean there is a god. This just goes back to regress. Where did god come from and how is god the way it is.

 

Yeah you're right. I'm probably either a pantheist or a panentheist.