Does God exist? Or, is there a God?

Amen

CPT Carl Kisely - Lee Strobels arguments are based on historical fact based on solid research...not garbage. He conducted fact based historical research. Everyone asks for "proof". Although proof is there, I don't need it...faith is my belief and that is all I need. I don't need to argue to prove my point...I live my life according to my belief and that is my argument. I believe my argument has merit....you don't. I don't foresee any conclusion to this discussion. We will just have to agree to disagree on this and move on. This is my last post on this thread.

Sir, professing your belief loudly and sternly, then abruptly walking out of the room also does not constitute intelligent discussion. I've read Lee Strobel and I've heard him speak. He spent tireless hours looking for something-anything- he could call "proof" and then just declared it so based on very shoddy evidence. If I were to declare Spiderman was real, had a girlfriend, had a real name of Peter Parker, defeated named criminals, and lives at such and such address, based PURELY off the fact that New York exists, you would call me batty. But Lee Strobel trots out a letter from AD 120 where a guy said "there were Christians in that town", then decided that "proves" the whole Bible is correct, and YOU believe him. Let that sink in.

I have learned over the years that there are conversations and discussions that will never convince the other side they are wrong or right or convert them to their way of thinking or belief...no matter what is said or what proof is laid out...either side. What I have learned is that when those situations arise, most of the time it is best to agree to disagree before it gets personal and then there is no going back. To me this is one of those discussions. You will never convince me of your belief and I am certain I can't convince you of mine. So far it has been civil but I am afraid it will get to a slippery slope and personal so I am not willing to go down that road. Cheers.

Yes, it is impossible if you are unwilling to hear the other side. The arguments presented by you and LTC Brandon are horrible arguments. That isn't a judgement of you or his character, or even of your conclusion. They are simply constructed illogically at best, and name calling at the worst. I refer back to my original objection, that "the fool says there is no god" argument is baseless, irrational, illogical, and dare I say mean. It's a horrible argument, and all I'm asking is for intellectual honesty. I used the example "only a moron doesn't believe in Scientology" as an example. Do you, sir, believe that this is a good argument for the truth of Scientology? If you say yes, then you are obliged to become a Scientologist. If you say it is not, then you must honestly admit that the fool quote is equally useless at determining facts. What say you?

A Hitchens fan. You're awesome.

BTW, I'm so sorry that your name is Major Keira. . .. Do Star Trek fans hassle you a lot?

TY for knowing it was Hitch (and some older scholars) who I attributed to the quote. The world lost a luminary when he returned to cosmic dust. Thankfully, we have Dr.'s Lawrence Krause, Sam Harris, and RICHARD DAWKINS!

CW3 (Join to see) If you reread my original post you'll see I state I don't have the answer, and have not assigned a deity. But, rather without a concrete answer or proof believe that somthing so "perfect" can't be by chance. Now before you pick apart my use of perfect again, you are bright enough to realize that people use it to describe what you would describe as imperfect. Yes, nothing is truly perfect. Not the perfect wife, not the perfect storm, not the perfect season. Even the laws of nature are imperfect as they can't be fully explained by even scientists or philosophers. I don't feel the need to disprove any portion of anyone's bible simply because I don't have all the answers, and some of what each believes could have some sliver of merit. I enjoy discussing the topic with anyone because there are a full range of beliefs and everyone is so passionate about it. If you review your comments here though you may detect your own tone of condescension as though you have all the answers even while acknowledging that you don't. You attack "absolute ideology" with your own absolute belief. You basically say "I don't have the answer and neither do you, so shut-up".

YES!!!!! OH SO MUCH YES!! I don't just detect my own condescion I know it was there, I meant for it. DO you know why? Because some of these posts need it! Example, earth is 6K years old. I have been askign for an explanation of Jesus and Velociraptors existing at the same time and yet all I get is (RAAAGHHHHRRR) I don't like what you are saying. See when I point out glaringly obvious falsities to things people say, the proper response is "yeah....that's ridiculous, I shouldn't put so much stock or defend this garbage" and when other people who are also believers start espousing this non sense, the proper thing to do is to step up to the plate and let them know how wrong they are from a believers side. Instead, all that happens is the reasonable believers who understand the bible and other written texts were done in a pre modern time where they lacked an understanding of the world sit idly by and allow the creationists and scientologists and flat earth society people and the countless other extremists to espouse this non sense. There is a reasonable argument to be made by both sides. The problem is that reason and logic are drowned out by insanity of thje true believers.

This discussion is fantastic, I enjoy a wonderfull intellectual debate. Last time I was brought to a standstill because I couldn't explain this thing caled morals and where it comes from. Thats a tough one, that is a logical and rational discussion. But being told that the earth is 6K years old and the bible is a factual recounting of history with no faults and every line si the word of go...come on now. How can I not be condescending to that level of obsurdity.

Oh, the laws of nature are perfect, they are the exact same here on earth as they are on the otherside of the universe. Gravity is always attractive. Matter can not be created nor destroyed. These things are reality whether we like them or not.

CW3 (Join to see) I actually understand your frustration but your condescension with me is misplaced. I've made no statement in support of or against the bible or even what a god is to me. I give all my points as non-absolute. I would tell you I believe many of the accounts in the bible are because many/most during that time could be easily duped. Imagine if any biblical figure saw a formation of F-16s they'd be kneeling to a new god. But I believe mixed in there are some truths, I don't chose to pick it apart because it's not my thing. I typically prefer to go to a more philosophical discussion of these topics, like where does instinct come from?

Great discussion. The fact that we are even asking this question about the existence of God proves His existence. Where did the idea to ask the question originate? Why is it that we are the only personality on the planet that has the mental capacity to ask such a question? The very Question prohibits to the answer.

SPC Lee Burner, I will probably regret returning my attention to this thread...lol.
If you're interested, Bertrand Russell has IMHO probably the best refutation of the First Cause argument in his book, "Why I am Not a Christian". The first chapter alone covers multiple arguments in a short manner. I slightly bastardize (probably) his counter-argument in my post below.

Regarding Hawking's argument not explaining "the necessity of the physical constants of the universe", that presumes that the constants are "laws" and that matter/energy "obeys" them. The Fine Tuning argument also makes this presumption, which is rooted in the human bias to see patterns and order even where there is none.

The "laws" of physics are not so much "laws", as they are simply descriptions of how matter/energy happens to "behave" in this universe. Even if there aren't a myriad other universes out there (past, present, or future), each with matter/energy "behaving" according to different "laws", the "laws" of physics are still merely descriptions of "behavior". Why matter/energy happens to "behave" in a sufficiently regular manner, such that it is convenient to describe its behavior as following "laws", is not something I know. As far as I do know though, physicists are hard at work on that one. And if there is a multiverse, then the concept of fine tuning is even further out the window.

I will definitely go and read that one. I meant my original response as more as someone searching for knowledge but obviously we can in truly speculate and then test theories. I actually find these topics fascinating especially the multi universe and reality theories like string theory because they really make you question your assumptions. Anyway I will definitely check out what you are referring too because I learn this stuff in small increments lol. Thank you

The idea of a multiverse is unscientific since it can't be proven and hasn't been observed. There is more evidence for God than there is for a multiverse. To play with that theory is simply denial of what has been observed and clinging to what has not been observed. That isn't science. It is science fiction. SPC Lee Burner @1st Lt Matt A

WOOOHOOO!!! Now that's a good couple posts. It's been awhile since I had to put some mental energy toward a point made. Mostly original, I like it.

Well, here is the deal. See if I was to just accept your posts at face value (like certain individuals do with the bible) I would be forced to admit that there is apparently an upswell of revolt against Darwin and Evolution in general. Thing is, I can't help myself so I took the time today to look into these. The website is smooth, I will give it that. But right away there are some pieces that just don't fit. Like, ALL of the narratives by EVERY SINGLE PHD is conspicuously worded the same...so similar that when you copy and paste a couple random picks and put them in Purdue Colleges Plagiarism detector, it comes back with a big ol' red flag. NOW, I get that maybe the same guy was just paraphrasing because he gives links to the articles. WELL, picking at random if you read what the Astrophysicist says about molecular biology (wait what?) you can INFER that that individual sees some issues with Darwins answer. However. after going through a dozen random ones, and then cross referencing with the help of google, I found that the letters intent and what the really smart people say are not quite the same. Though close enough for your purposes. So looking into that a little more, I found that I am not the first (and your not the first either) to go down this road. With the wonderful help of the worlds people I found a really nice site that does the leg work for me.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/scientists-evolution.php

SPC Nathan Freeman - You honestly can't be serious? are you giving this to me as a present? Did you not check the source? It is LITERALLY labeled "recycling 3000+ Tons of religious garbage daily" .....I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't intend for that one to be used....And the comments...I mean...come on......I don't even have to give a rebuttal...there are like 100 different people tearing that apart and answering ever 'point" made....

SPC Nathan Freeman - My favorite part is the list of Steve. Great stuff. And the fact that there are 2..a whopping 2 PHDs worldwide who have a leg to stand on and are basically put in the corner and ignored because of the drivel that comes out of their heads.

Your post is inaccurate as there are five such scientists on the first page of the website. Since you're using biased websites to prove your point, you may as well check out Answersingenesis.com where they have numerous articles by many PhDs regarding the "evidence" of evolution.

To believe that article you posted without doing your due diligence is intellectually irresponsible. Look at the signatures yourself and read what they have to say. Keep an open mind if that's possible. It's not surprising that there are more people who believe in evolution since it has been crammed down our throats for decades. It's more of a doctrine than a theory which devalues humanity. CW3 (Join to see)

I don't demand peer reviewed evidence for my family's love, I have no need; However, since love is a quantifiable physiological response that CAN and HAS been measured. I could do that if needed. Unlike your experience of a god which up until his very moment has never been verified. And yes, I would very much like to call your bluff and ask you to present the evidence that your belief in something makes it real. Your claim that "Jesus lives in me" is both preposterous and highly unlikely, since by the very definition of the word that would make him at best a friendly bacteria and at worst a parasitic organism.

As with all extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required to prove it.

Why berate someone for their beliefs? There is no value to your argument, CW3 (Join to see). Responding to someone's statement of faith with, "Sigh...Okay," is rude and insinuates that they are foolish or an idiot. You can disagree without being a jerk about it. Where is your peer review science proving that God does not exist, since you are so sure about your belief. Also, peer review CAN and HAS been bought and paid for. A good example is the sugar industry in the 80s paying scientists to confirm that fat caused weight gain and poor health when they knew the opposite to be true. We believed that crap for 20 years. If you were to have proof of your faith, then your faith is not faith and becomes worthless. Most of those with whom God conversed with personally had a much easier time believing, but they also lived very difficult lives as a result, which tested not their faith, but their determination to stay faithful when faced with torment or difficulty.

SFC Walter Mack - please don't mistake what I have said with me berating anyone, I haven't even gotten close to berating, nor would I. However, my response is written in such a way to attempt to have maximum effect, not because I want to be rude, or come off as derogatory, but because I have a tremendous amount of respect for the intelligence of the individuals on here and find it an absolute travesty that until now, no one in their life has pointed out the glaringly obvious, irrefutable, and mind blowing failures and irrationality of their deeply held beliefs. Why wouldn't I do this? this is the ONE subject that we are NOT allowed to treat as we do with every. single. other. subject? At every point in every persons careers on here there has always been the argument ending "well fine, show me" thrown down, and, miraculously just like that, every person on here would only accept things to be true if said claim was backed up by something. But on this I am supposed to accept the opposite? that since they have a deeply held belief backed by nothing but feelings, it is I who have to disprove that? seriously? that makes less sense than claiming you have had a conversation with god, because I KNOW you know better. There is literally no difference between this and ruining Santa Claus for children, except that everyone is an adult and should be able to handle the harsh truth, you were raised to believe this because that's what the family does, it doesn't make Santa real.

And everyone on here is an Atheist, difference is, I take it one god further.

God conversed with? seriously, if that is a thing and anyone goes around saying that, what happens to them? they locked away. Why? because at a deep level everyone knows if you hear voices in your head, it isn't god and you need medical help.

You would be far more accurate if you called me condescending.

CW3 (Join to see), I'm not sure how condescending is better. It's still an attitude of superiority toward those you find foolish, much like a Dr. talking to a child about their asthma, but with fewer kind tones. Those who have spoken to God are people such as Paul, Moses, Isaiah, etc. I'm not referring to those who claim to experience it today. God stopped speaking to people directly when he sent his Holy Spirit to communicate with us and through us on a different level. This I and many others have experienced as God's evidence in our own lives. If you choose not to believe that, then fine, but making condescending remarks about our experiences and beliefs is not a mature response in conversation. Many Christians have more than childhood brainwashing to support their faith. Once again, faith involves the absence of tangible proof. Otherwise, faith is meaningless.