Does God exist? Or, is there a God?

Where is this overabundance of proof? if it were proof we wouldn't be having this conversation would we? It would have been agreed upon by all people across the globe as a fact.

Not believing in Magic certainly is a choice. Just the same as choosing to ignore reality and cherry pick things from ancient texts that support your beliefs while disregarding all those that do not. Just sayin.

Some people refuse to believe because they know it means they will have to change. People don't like to change unless they see the benefit. @CW2 Justin Smith

SPC Nathan Freeman - That is a ridiculous statement, change is the number two thing all Atheists can agree on. Change is at the very heart of science, change is what makes the entire universe so amazing.

It has nothing to do with a refusal. there is no atheist who would say that there is nothing you can provide to change my mind. That belongs to the believers, all atheists ask for the same pesky thing, shown me some evidence, let it be peer reviewed, that's all. To date, that has never happened.

To make such a statement, you would have to have met all Christians and all atheists. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you haven't met them all. Aside from that, it was a Creationist who predicted that Mercury would have a magnetosphere when all the evolutionists predicted it shouldn't have a magnetosphere based on the supposed age of the universe. While the Big Bang Theory might be a good theory on how God created the Universe, the timeline is wrong. There are plenty of evidences of a young universe that are overlooked, ignored or remain unexplained. You also have to consider that Einstein said that time itself can be bent by gravity. It seems everyone forgets this and assumes that time never changes speed. According to Einsteins Throry, and based on the supposed beginning of time, space and matter of the Big Bang, time most certainly moved faster in the past. The Bible in ways actually supports all of this, including the Big Bang.

And yet all of that falls flat when presented with the easiest of challenges, show me. evidence, verifiable, peer reviewed. That is all.

Cpt. Carl, so you are more holy and righteous than that God described then there? It seems you are totally missing the point as to why He did all that. I can explain further, but I am interested in hearing your response. You sound so wise and so righteous... it sound rather incredible to me.

LTC Fred Wiske, I would never order an army to enter a city and destroy every single man, woman, child except virgin girls, animal, and structure. If I were to order this, I would be tried under international law. It does not matter if the elected officials in the city were all corrupt. It would not matter if the majority or all occupants were engaged in extramarital or homosexual or group sex. It would not matter if they held ceremonies where they sacrificed children. I would not be allowed to kill every living thing and destroy all property in that city or I would be tried. If you feel, however, that this is an appropriate use of military force, I would be more than happy to report you to your superiors.

That's a response I would expect from the scientologists in a couple of videos I've watched. "You said something I don't like! You must be inadequate or especially unqualified somehow!"

BTW, I don't know any scientologists, and the only ones I've seen are in several different documentaries where they subjugate and persecute their followers and criticizers.

SPC Kyle Kinas, I've also noticed that MAJ Ballinger is going around "thumb downing" my comments. Despite the fact that when you click thumb down, it says "please comment for thumbs down" or something like that, he rarely actually answers the questions I pose.

"God ordered the slaughter of all men, women, kids, animals, plants, and property in a city, except virgin women that were taken as war brides- is this okay?" Is met with "thumbs down"

"God destroyed a woman for looking back at her city ablaze in fire, but gave a pass to her husband that lent his teenage daughter out for gang rape- is that okay?" is met with "thumbs down." It's really quite pathetic.

MAJ Carl Ballinger okay, i'm back. this forum can be so tiresome. But i guess that's what happens when i drink too much coffee on my day off. Where were we?

I honestly thought you'd enjoy my little breakdown above. I was laughing. was any of it really that far off-base? frankly, I did google that list. But i have gone through that list. Many of the contradictions are very valid. There are enough to convince me that the bible is at best unreliable. I don't really care how many journalists write about a flying pig. Anyone who believes it happened, without seeing a flying pig themselves, or understanding how a pig can fly, is pretty silly. Those journalists being referenced for centuries doesn't make the event more likely; it makes it less likely. Is there evidence to throw on the other side of the scale to help offset those doubts?

(this is totally aside from the topic of 'any sort of consciousness continuing after death'. you could respond to that too, if you like. and btw, i have read the bible. The popular sections, more than few times. and admittedly, i haven't picked it up in years, because once you don't buy into it, what's the incentive?)

Allowing an innocent child to suffer from starvation or physical abuse is not good. If you claim your god is all knowing and all powerful, he is not good. If you claim your god is good, he is either not all knowing, or not all powerful. Your god cannot be all three at the same time if there are innocent children suffering horribly.

For you to suggest that an innocent child suffering horrible is good, is horrible, and it reveals the level of brainwashing you are suffering from. I encourage you to think critically about why it's ok for your god to allow the torture and suffering of innocent children.

What in the hell do you know about what I have and have not thought deeply about. That statement alone shows you base your conclusions on false assumptions.

I do not presume anything is evil, because I do not believe in an absolute good or evil. But you do. You can not argue that god is good, that god is all powerful and all knowing, yet god does nothing to stop the suffering of innocent children.

To say that we do not understand the ways of god is just the intellectual judo you have to do in order to remain devout to your religion in the face of these facts that contradict the claims of your religion. You can't expect the rest of us to buy into that crap.

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and slapped you in the face. lol.

That's a cool point of view PO1 (Join to see). I do disagree that trust in science is the same as trust in religion (faith having a few different meaning, i substituted trust). The difference is, science by its nature is empirically verifiable. Even when the conclusion are wrong or require modification to better fit newly made or better understood observations, it is a self correcting model for the universe. Religion seems to start with a set of assumptions and fights against reality to confirm them. sure, things exist we can't see. but that's different than saying "there are supernatural forces that are invisible because there are natural forces that are invisible, too."

I don't think I'm terrified of what i don't know. In any case I don't think that fear would compel me to assert something that I do not know to be true.

TSgt Hunter Logan omg, that is a bit verbose.

Let's try again: One doesn't need to be terrified of the unknown, and inventing gods or unicorns or whatever isn't constructive. "Wind is invisible" and "unicorns are invisible" doesn't mean both wind and unicorns exist.

Better? :P

SPC Kyle Kinas, I have felt the wind. Have you ever felt a unicorn?

my point exactly! thank you. there are other ways to learn. one should at least try to explore them all, honestly.

Cpl Robert Lowes: apologies, I don't know why I saw you instead of SPC (Join to see) there.

SPC D W Pardon me, I guess I should have stated "relevant authors". Plutarch didn't mention jesus, or OP's god anywhere that I can find. Your point?

And i'm not sure about what you you mean regarding your reference to "unknown creature to man evolution". What could that have to do with OP's god?

"Well, that doesn't fit any known animal, save for the bombadier beetle. So please, let's hear your best explanation." They made it up, like most mythical creatures. Based on real creatures, but take on some supernatural quality. Seems most likely, given the descriptions available.

Regarding the witnesses, If they existed, they had strong convictions. But believing a thing and that thing being true are two different things. People die all the time believing right or wrong things all the time. Their death is not relevant.

Thank you for waiting. :)

SPC (Join to see):

\\People die all the time believing right or wrong things all the time. \\

Given that I already addressed why their deaths ARE relevant, but you decided that reading my comments is beneath your dignity, good bye.

'Later. :)

I read an interesting quote relative to the existence of God:  "Absence of proof is not proof of absence".  That said, I think the reason we have so many denominations and faiths is driven by the interpretation by people of what God means.  There are 50 or more types of Baptists alone.   

I have heard similar quotes of the likeness, and I do agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I believe that if there is an almighty, then that all-powerful is less concerned with whether or not you Presbyterian and worship in manner A, or you are Roman Catholic and worship is manner B, yet more concerned with "are you a good person."

He's more concerned with you accepting Him for who He is, not so much about how good a person you are. It's not about lawkeeping, for if that were the case, all would be condemned, as no one has kept the law in its entirety (except for Christ). Our goodness is imputed wholly from Christ, and our behavioral goodness is only good in that it is a response to God's grace.

I cannot accept that, sir. Since the concept of who this almighty deity depends on your belief system. Are we talking God in the sense of Judaism, or Catholicism/Christianity? Or perhaps Vishnu, or Allah?

The reason I choose to think of the almighty as I do is because defining that being is impossible. Once parameters are set, you drift into dangerous waters. Bigotry, and killing in the "name of God." If there is an almighty, I highly doubt they would demand slaughter to appease them.

Rather, I think of the deity as a judge of a persons character, and whether or not they chose to live as a decent, honest person. Of course, I am not one to determine what classifies as being a 'good person,' since I am not a god. But, that is just what I think.

1stLt Nick S Sure it is a choice. Some of the most devote aethists are former believers. They chose to follow that path. They did not learn it from the church or house of faith they grew up in, they chose it.

Was there an incident? Was it a choice grown from apathy of practice? Or was it simply an effect of being involved in a secular society? Who knows, but it was a choice. I know guys who were altar boys with me in grade school. One is now a priest, the other an atheist. We all had the same schooling and general upbringing, what was different other than a personal choice?

If I lied to myself by saying I do believe, and I know I either do not believe, or neither believe nor disbelieve, or just don't have much opinion or concern, I might feel "icky" too. =) Of course this is just humor....no decent self-respecting and thoughtful person lies to self.

You can believe and choose not to practice your faith, or you can choose to practice religion even though you do not really believe. Choice plays a big role in the face we present to society, however it doesn't change who we are... you either believe or you do not.

Ok 1stLt Nick S, lets nullify the portion of the argument where different parents are involved.

My wife is the oldest of three siblings, all raised in a Christian household. Same parents, no divorce or outside influences disrupting the home. My wife is the only one to maintain her Christian belief. Daily/weekly faith based practices were the same, reinforcement and discipline were the same. Yet the other two are hardened non-believers. In most "equations", where circumstances are the same, the results should be the same. Here we have 66% of a sibling group choosing to be non-believers.

What other answer is there other than choice in this situation where all the environmental factors are equal for all?

MAJ (Join to see) I hear you on interesting ideas in every religion. I can't accept an eternal or infinite consequence for a finite act. It's a very illogical concept. I can accept a general concept of dharma and karma or even an idea that there are more and less noble ways to behave. I can accept that people will be rewarded to a greater or lesser extent for their actions if there is an afterlife but I shut down with the concept of eternal punishment.

I would argue it is never right to act against your own self interest. Now there may be times when other people perceive your own self interest differently than you do (when you decide to give someone your money because you value the psychic reward of helping them more than the money, or when you lay down your life to save a brother because you love him more than your own life) but they aren't really examples of acting against your own self interest.

It sounds like your last paragraph is referring to Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) which I did a little on above on another post. 1stLt Nick S brought some challenges to it.

I will take issue with your final idea that any religion on net makes the world a safer place. There has been a lot of very good debate by people far smarter than me about that, and it certainly doesn't seem definitively settled. I'll go in for anyone who treats people as they want to be treated and lives and let lives though, no matter what other creeds they have. In the end the only principal I insist on out of people I associate with is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Non initiation of force or fraud.

Spot on with the self interest lay down your life, it's the self promoting self interest that lack of a belief in afterlife facilitates. If you don't believe in one, there are few situations where a rational person would give up their life, even a hope of afterlife gives you a much better foundation for selfless behavior. If you don't believe you exist after death why on earth would you be willing to lay down your life, that certainly is against your self interests, with few exceptions. The main point is to find a good religion that helps you live a better life and teaches you to help others out. Be it Christianity, Islam, Hindu, or a version of Agnosticism. A belief in God can be used for good or evil, find a good God and make the world a better place, don't prejudice based on your ethnocentric views and alleviate suffering.

Your triad, upon which you base your conclusions, is theologically (and by default, philosophically) faulty. God allows evil to exist, because humans have the freedom of choice to violate his laws and intent. God is not "omnibenevolent."

I'm starting the slow clap for this one. Bravo.