Does God exist? Or, is there a God?

Sir, someone will. If they truly believe there isn't. After all, atheist truly believe there isn't.

SGT (Join to see) and Sgt (Join to see) I do understand that. I didn't exclusively mean that everyone would agree. I should have possibly worded it better. I am just critical of affirmations of faith that are there to prove their affirmation faith. I am not a guy that just wants to hear your faith. I want to see it. I want to see outreach and helping the masses, including strangers. I have seen too many "YEA WE ARE SAVED AND WE ARE AWESOME!" type church. If your faith mirrors a prep rally then you might be doing wrong. If you church mirrors a missionary then you might be doing it right. That is my two cents.

MAJ Carl Ballinger I have seen far too much prep rallies on Sunday. They all feel good and give thanks for all the stuff they have but don't do squat for anyone else. So when I hear a question like this I am skeptic. I would rather hear something like how have to helped others in your faith or how did you help a person in need. The church I go to puts together a fall festival every year at a random low income house area. It is not for us. It is for those that live there that never get a chance to enjoy one. That is how it is done. Just having one for your own church isn't really what was intended I think.

No

This friggin phone...

Im done until I can get to a real keyboard. Meanwhile, hopefully you are smart enough to get my gist. Willful ignorance of fact does not make it fiction. You may tell yourself the bus isn't there, but it's still gonna hurt like hell when you get run over.

Countered Captain but not definitively disproved... lol and do NOT condescend with fairly tale comparisons.

Sgt James Morse , Damned technology! LOL! Anyway, yes I think I get your gist. However, once again, evidence must rule out alternatives. No evidence thus presented here comes even close to meeting that standard. Again, your "proof" of god can just as easily "prove" that a giant, pink, invisible unicorn farted the dust of life 4 million years ago and then died and spread out to become the stars. They are both fairy tales that "well look at the design in the world!" could conceivably be "evidence" for. But they aren't I don't dismiss the evidence because I don't like the result, I dismiss the evidence because there are about 4,890,348 different explanations I can contrive to explain it. That's not very conclusive.

SSgt (Join to see) , I counter with fairy tale comparisons because everything about the bible follows the model of fairy tales. Scientific inaccuracy, obviously contrived story to prove a point, change over time, fuzzy beginnings of mixed former fairy tales..... All of it.

At what point does the amount of evidence become sufficient? You claim that you are not ignoring evidence, yet your demand to see "sufficient" evidence to prove the existence of God is tantamount to the same thing. As I noted before, the evidence-- if appraised by the same standards by which we conduct criminal cases in the U.S.-- is overwhelmingly in favor of a single, omniscient, Creator God.

We don't even have to go to the Old Testament in order to make our case. If Jesus Christ was a real person (which has been universally accepted by most historians for a long time), and we accept that His life and works were authentic and accurately documented (which, as the record shows, has been done-- even the people who wanted Him forgotten recorded details confirming His birth, ministry, and death), then we must accept the existence of God.

Whether or not the Old Testament-- or parts of it-- were written as poetry, prose, history, prophecy, or human record (such as the numbering of tribes in Numbers and Chronicles) is no longer relevant to the conversation, because we know that if Jesus is who He claimed to be, the Old Testament is validated.

As with anything in history, we must use the information available to paint a picture representative of what actually occurred. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander the Great is universally accepted as a genuine personality from ancient Macedonia, even though evidence of his achievements do not show up in the historical record until a couple hundred years after he died. (Again: the prophet Isaiah prophesied Alexander's campaign and described-- accurately-- his conquest of the city of Tyre over one hundred years before the actual event.)

We can also use the historical record to give weight to our findings, based on the customs and practices of the culture(s) being investigated. In this way, many small details are used to either corroborate or disprove the theories forwarded by historians. For instance, one thing that supports the Resurrection story is the fact that it was women who first found the empty tomb. The empty tomb is the lynch-pin of the Christian faith. Without the Easter event, all of Christianity is nothing more than a nice way to live with each other. But, women were considered to be of such low stature that they were not permitted to testify in legal proceedings, even in their own defense. For the Apostles to have allowed that women were the first to discover the signal event of the Christian faith strongly suggests that the story itself is authentic. Alone, it is not "proof" of anything. Taken in combination with other evidence (for instance, the records of the Sanhedrin, and of the Roman legation in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion) it begins to build a much stronger case.

Another important factor in studying the historical record, is the age of the documentation, itself. If the story of the Gospel of Christ was not recorded until generations after His death, one could reasonably make the argument that the story itself was a piece of fiction, or, at best, a fictionalized record of a great man. However, every written account of Christ was (according to both the historical record, and Church tradition-- which I will cover momentarily) was written within a single generation of Christ's death. We have reliably dated the authorship of the four Gospels to within 50-90 years of Christ's death, based on the statements of people who did not have a reason to falsify information (such as Josephus, who was a Jewish historian not obliged to pump up any of the Messiah stories), on the content of the Gospels themselves, and on the testimony of the early Church fathers. More damning to arguments against the deity of Christ is the recent find of a Gospel of Mark, in Egypt, reliably dated to within 5 years of the crucifixion. This find is still awaiting peer review, but the archaeologist responsible for the find is a responsible, well-respected scholar and all indications are that the peer reviews will come back in his favor.

Then there is the matter of archaeological finds which corroborate the Gospel accounts. For instance, in the Gospel according to Luke, many details were included that secular historians have latched onto in order to discount the Gospels altogether. One of their favorite targets was Luke 3:1, in which Luke notes that, "Lysanius was tetrarch of Abilene." For many years the only known reference-- other than Luke-- to a government official named Lysanius, was in a different part of the Middle East (Syria, I believe, but I don't have access to a lot of my research at the moment). A few years ago, in the excavations of Abilene, a stone marker was found that dated to the time of Christ, and which named Lysanius as person responsible for the construction which was being excavated. Turns out, there were two guys named Lysanius, each governing a different Roman province. Who knew? This is only a single incident, but there are many, many other examples to pull from. And in all of this (and contrary to your claims), there has not been a single archaeological find which contradicts the Gospel accounts, although there have been many that corroborate it.

"Well," you may say, "that's all well and good. But the story of this 'resurrection' is obviously a fabrication. Nobody rises from the dead."

Huh.

Well, as it happens, we have already conceded that the Resurrection is the defining event in the Christian faith, and we have noted that it was women that have been credited to first discover that Christ had left the tomb. The fact that women were credited with this find gives strong support for the authenticity of the story, but it doesn't end there. The Apostle Paul records in his epistles that Christ, after the resurrection, appeared first to the women, then to the brothers, then to 500 other witnesses, among others. The context of the epistle implies that the readers would be able to identify who the "500" were, and Paul notes that "some have gone to sleep (died,) but most are still alive." This is Paul, basically daring the readers to doubt the resurrection. "Go ask these other dudes! Don't take my word for it!" It is unlikely that Paul would have taken such a risk if he did not know for certain that the eyewitnesses would confirm his story.

What else? Well, how about the fact that, suddenly, after the brutal humiliation and suffering that Christ endured on the Cross, and under constant threat of arrest, torture and execution at the hands of the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman Empire these men-- the disciples of Christ-- began to preach the Gospel in every place that they could find res to listen. These are men who knew-- and acknowledged-- that they would be killed for their faith, and yet something gave them assurance that they would continue to live after the destruction of their bodies, and to be restored, whole, alive, and incorruptible at the Advent. Granted, we have our share of suicidal lunatics in our own time. The difference, though, is that these men were, at their core, Jews, and as it is recorded in the Acts, they were seriously in doubt of Christ rising from the dead. If Christ had NOT risen, what possible reason could these men have had to throw their lives to the wind, knowingly sacrificing themselves to spread the word of a discredited Jewish rabbi? It defies explanation, other than that they believed that Christ had risen. The only way for them to be convinced of such a thing, would have been to see the Messiah, in the flesh, after his resurrection.

All of this, again, confirmed by secular sources who had every reason under the sun to deny Christ in any capacity.

I'd go into more detail, but the truth is, I'm not making these arguments for your benefit. Your mind and heart are clearly hardened to the truth, and I suspect that no amount of persuasion will ever be enough to take the scales from your eyes. There are others, however-- people on the fence, truly interested in learning the truth but still unsure; believers who have had a seed of doubt nagging at them and eating away at their personal ministry; people who are utterly lost, and looking for a light to point the way to truth-- who need to see that there is, in fact, more than enough "proof" to justify filling in the last small gaps with an act of faith. In the end, faith is what saves-- or condemns-- all of us. Whether you believe, or not, is irrelevant. We WILL all die, we WILL all be raised again incorruptible, and we WILL be judged before the throne of Christ. Those who refuse the gift of Christ's sacrifice will be sent to eternal damnation; the believers will be restored and justified, sanctified by the blood of Christ, to live in glory in the Eternal Kingdom of God.

So, I understand that you won't be persuaded. Not, "can't be persuaded;" "won't be." It is interesting to look at the way you argue your case. I mean, theologically, psychologically, the contrast between the "atheist" and the believer is pretty stark. I mean, even the moniker, "atheist," is a deception. All an atheist has done is declare that he, himself, is the final arbiter of what is good, lawful, acceptable, or actionable for himself. He has elevated himself to a position that makes him the final authority in his own choices and actions, denying that he is accountable or subject to any authority above his own (save government and whatever martial authority he/she may live under; even then, if they disagree, they'll do as much as they can get away with).

From Dictionary.com:

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.

You deify yourself by placing yourself above God. You claim no god, while making yourself one. It has nothing to do with supernatural powers, any more than reflexology has to do with witchcraft. There was another guy who did almost exactly the same thing-- putting himself above his creator-- and for the same reason: pride.

Things didn't go well for him.

But that's off-point a little. What is interesting is how pride suffuses everything you say about God. He doesn't exist, because YOU haven't been convinced and the huge amount of evidence which, in any non-supernatural discussion of the facts, would be more than sufficient to close the gap between belief, and disbelief. You are obviously more intelligent and better attuned than 90% (or more) of all the people who have ever lived, that fervently believed in a higher power to which all men are accountable. Who needs facts and statistics and events, when intellect-- specifically, your intellect-- denies the veracity of ANY claim to the supernatural, especially (snicker, cough, giggle) some Zombie God from ancient times. I mean, seriously.

Even your arguments are centered on pride, although usually not your own. Instead you attack the pride of the faithful. It's a clever ploy, since all of us retain the sin nature that we are born with. We certainly have the help of the Holy Spirit to help us resist such things, but the hold of the flesh is strong. The world stares back at us, and every person has an instinctive desire to fit in, to be seen as part of the crowd. To be seen as normal.

So, your counter is to say that the believer is an ignorant dupe. To call our faith farcical, even simple-minded. You announce that we have been betrayed by hucksters intent on blinding the world to TRUTH, SCIENCE, and the mighty HUMAN INTELLECT. In fact, you insinuate, we are slaves to our faith, somehow weakened and diminished by our hope in an afterlife that promises joy and worship, while separating us from the stain of sin...

The question, really, is this: why do you care? I mean, if you're right, great. We die, it's a permanent dirt nap and nothing anyone has ever done really makes a difference because once we die, it's lights out man. Game over. But what if I'm right?

What if all those people that accepted that your "truth," is "THE Truth," wind up sitting outside the gates with you when that day finally arrives? Okay, you want to take that risk, great. More power to you. But what about all those folks that bent to your derision and condescension and mockery? They suffer the cost of their sin, to be sure. They let their pride lead them, and all of us are accountable for our own actions, and not those of another. But don't think that doesn't mean you wouldn't have to bear-- eternally, mind you-- the weight of that guilt as you suffer your own judgment.

And why would you want to cause the faithful to question their faith? What difference, really, does it make to you whether I believe in God, or Christ, or the Great Salamander in the Sky? You have your faith-- faith in your intellect, in your wisdom, in your conviction that there is no higher authority than man. Why should you try to undermine the faith that brings so many people comfort, and hope, and joy, and provides them with the strength and perseverance and will to carry on in the face of diversity?

What would you say to all those people who, in the Sudan and Middle East, are being butchered like cattle, sold into slavery, or forced into poverty on account of their faith in Christ? "Hey, guys, you idiots are dying for nothing. Seriously. Just admit that there is no God, agree to anything these guys say, and they'll take their ball and go home."

You should give that some thought. A little introspection on that might enlighten you somewhat. At the very least, maybe you will realize that claiming to be smarter than anyone who believes in any god, is kind of an asshole thing to do. You don't believe in God? Great. So then if it doesn't matter, why are YOU proselytizing disbelief?

Those of us firmly rooted in our faith don't look at you the way you think we do. We have faith, yes, but every one of us has had some very real experience at some point in our lives that confirms that our faith is well-placed. Life doesn't get easier, but we get stronger. Dealing with atheists, pagans, non-believers in general-- bearing your insults and derision and sometimes physical assaults for the sake of Christ-- these things increase our reward. But even with that, we see you as lost, pitiful, a dupe of forces you can't begin to understand because you refuse to believe in them, even as they work through you. We pray for you, but I, at least, feel the same kind of pity for you that I feel for a bull when I'm watching some Travel Channel documentary about animal sacrifice. Maybe a little more, in your case; the bull didn't make a conscious decision that led to its death.

But it does puzzle me. Why try to undermine a force for good in someone's life, just because you don't believe in it? "The topic was open. I just expressed my opinion." Okay. Why? What compelled you? "I'm gonna show people how smart I am." "I'm gonna show people how dumb Christians are." "I'm gonna humiliate me some believers!"

Huh. It just gets curiouser and curiouser... well, I'm going to leave it that. Long-winded? Yeah, but I get like that when I talk about Christ. He has done things in my life so awesome, that they defy comprehension, let alone explanation. But my commission is to spread the Gospel, not sell it, so I don't see any point in continuing an argument that my Lord and Savior decisively decided from a cross of wood and an empty tomb. I sincerely hope the best for you, and I pray that something will occur in your life that will allow you to see just how much you lack by not having Christ in your life.

~Allen

Oddly enough, diversity of life is pretty much a settled matter. All diversity of life can be explained by evolution. However, this still has no bearing on the question of a deity, it only means that Genesis was wrong. I personally do not have a belief in a deity, but if there is or was a god or gods, they did not, in fact, create the diversity of life on our planet. His/her/their involvement is different. To specifically answer your question about sea creatures and monkeys, I give you an example. You and your cousin are descended from your grandparents. Your name might be Smith, and your cousin's name is Jones, but you still have grandparents in common. In exactly the same manner, apes, monkeys, humans, gorillas, bonobos, and gibbons are related if you go back millions of generations. The monkey of today is not what we evolved from, just as you are not a product of your cousin. For better information, here is a good site: http://www.talkorigins.org/

MAJ Carl Ballinger dude, he already told on what basis. 'cuz science.

" All diversity of life can be explained by evolution. However, this still has no bearing on the question of a deity, it only means that Genesis was wrong. I personally do not have a belief in a deity, but if there is or was a god or gods, they did not, in fact, create the diversity of life on our planet. His/her/their involvement is different."

Even gave you a website for reference.

#MAJfail

CPT. Kisely,
Thank you for your response, very well worded and detailed. As to the question of a deity, I will think of as thus:
1. If there is in fact a deity and I believe and you do not (not meaning you personally), I will gain the promise/reward made by the deity and you perhaps, will not.
2. If there is not a deity, I will have lived a life with hope at the very least, you would have lived the same as you normally would have.
As far as Genesis is concerned, I choose to believe despite your offering to the contrary, thanks again though for taking your time to contribute.

I appreciate the compliment. On your latest comment, you have borrowed from Pascale's wager, who famously issued the idea that better to believe and be wrong than not believe and face the consequences. Also, slightly less famous, is the understanding that Pascale had engaged in a false dichotomy. This is to say, he has set up the problem between two choices. However, it is not a true dichotomy because there are more than two choices. For example: If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have better schools. However, there are third alternatives, such as spending tax money more efficiently, getting bids for lower costs on contracting jobs, restructuring, etc. In your specific example, there are about 4000 gods currently worshipped in the world, and for some of those gods, your way of life is setting you up for a quick trip to hell. You see, Pascal's wager is only useful to fool the already faithful into retaining their religion. It is intellectually dishonest, however, in establishing the truth.

This doesn't seem to really answer OP. There's no 'why' here. How do you know a god can or even would do that? Why is that relevant to a gods' existence? How do you even know there are gods?

If this were the only incidence of such a thing occurring, Kyle, then maybe i would agree with you. But there is something in law called "proof by a preponderance of evidence." When you put together this incident with millions of others like it, plus the 99+% proven textual accuracy of the Bible as compared with other Ancient Near Eastern texts, plus the overwhelming archaeological and historical evidence backing up the historical accuracy of the events, persons, places and miracles of the Bible, then this line of argumentation does indeed hold a lot of water. It's just one more pebble in the overwhelming weight of verifying evidence the Bible has on its side.

um, no, just plain no. THERE IS NO, I SAY AGAIN, NO PROVEN FACT OF ANY HISTORICAL EVENT FROM THE BIBLE. It fails at internal validity at every turn.

Science doesn't care what you believe

Just because most people believe something does not make it true

Just because you believe something, has not ever, does not now, nor will it ever make it true.

Please present a peer reviewed article confirming a single miracle of the bible

SPC D W , Dr Snelling is a fake and a quack. http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/realsnelling.htm

SPC D W , I find it amusing that your fake, ridiculous, nonsensical worldview full of magic sky daddies is so important to you that you would assume that I am unfaithful just because I don't believe in those same fake, magical bumbling idiots known as gods.

According to your source, CPT Carl Kisely, there is a degreed geologist working for a creationist organization in Australia known as Dr Andrew Snelling.

Ergo, you are wrong, again. So, please, continue to attack people that you know nothing about.

"For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia."

SPC D W , please let me bang my head against the wall for the 90th time since engaging in conversation with you. Read the f*#ing thing, would you? Do you ever actually read the stuff you purport to know about? I know you haven't read the bible, because you're still a Christian! LOL!

Seriously, though, the author of this article pointed out that there are lots of works by a Dr. Snelling at a particular address that writes highly researched, peer reviewed, industrial useful papers. He speaks matter of factly on dating geological structures as quite old. His knowledge is accurate and is so useful that he works for big companies to help with their exploration efforts.

THEN, there are a whole lot of works by a Dr. Snelling, using the same address, that talks only of young earth and the problems with currently accepted dating.

So, as the author is correct to point out, something is very wrong here. There is either 1) a Dr. Snelling that completely disagrees with accepted dating methods, but all the while works with those methods and speaks authoritatively about them, or 2) somebody is lying.

Quackery all around. Seriously, read some stuff. If I had a mechanic that told me my spark plugs were bad, and another that told me that spark plugs actually don't do anything for the performance of the engine, it would be really easy to see who is right and wrong. One guy changes them out and Whoooooo Hoooooooo! Spark plug guy is right. I don't know how many more times I can say this to you before you get it. Science is exactly the same. The guys that date the planet to millions of years and use the accepted dating methods are the ones that find resources, predict all sorts of results, and are right and make money doing it. The quacks you keep listening to have done ZILTCH to improve technology. They've done ZILTCH in aiding industry. They make their money only by suckering people like you into paying them money to talk about their silly, quack ideas.

CW2 (Join to see) - I highly respect points made on your post concerning this controversial subject that has been going on since...... But as one of the faithful ones, I know that science has been wrong more than once concerning matters of our existence and general makeup as human beings. I don't respect the opinion of some (as in one of the replies above) that assume that we could be dumb people that evolved into monkeys. That statement was disrespectful, and it seems person obviously has little tact. Once again, I respect your comment on the subject.

CW2 (Join to see) - I do however object to your statement that I force my faith (which is not possible) on others. I just simply stated my belief or faith in God's existence. Where did you interpret forcing my view to anyone at any point?

One reason I don't like discussion online is you can't read a person's tone or body language, perhaps he was making a joke, or maybe he was disrespectful, I do not know and the only thing I'll assume is that obstacles are overwatched.

Science is wrong sometimes, and it admits it. It also admits that it doesn't know things. Such as how in regular physics all of our math and laws work, but at the quantum level they don't, and there's a different set of math and rules for it. If there can be a set that defines regular and quantum physics, then we'd have many things figured out, but until then, we don't know will have to suffice. The faithful believe that anything unanswered is just simply put there by their deity. I suppose some people are just content with that answer, and there's the beauty of free will, to each his own.

I love discussing science and religion, but there is always that line that may not be crossed. There are also some great jokes but (un)fortunately I just finished EO school so they will not be getting posted......

SSG Larry Penn - In response to the "forcing religion on others" perhaps I mispoke on the matter. You are right, you were not pushing it much. It was just your last two sentences that were a little more towards others, but not in too bad of a way. Rereading them, it appears more of you showing how much your faith means to you, which is obviously a lot. I would have said that few give religious faith a chance though they have faith in so much more. As opposed to pushing specifically the bible, which is your particular choice.

After a few conversation with the gentleman, I believe he (OP) started the conversation with the goal of either proselytizing, or affirming his own faith. Could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Does it take courage to stir the pot? I would say, here, yes. Especially for an active service member.

edit: post was meant to refer specifically to OP

SPC (Join to see), for the record, I did not write the OP with the intent to affirm my faith or to proselytize. The OP states exactly what I sought: the best arguments for or against the existence of God.

QED gives a better answer.