does god exist?

If all religious people would just overtly admit that they believe what they do completely arbitrarily and as a matter of pure faith I would think more highly of them than if they continue pretending that they actually have rational reason to posit God.

 

If all non-religious people would just overtly admit that they believe what they do completely arbitrarily and as a matter of pure faith I would think more highly of them than if they continue pretending that they actually have rational reason to deny God.

 

I don't deny God when I say there's no concrete evidence for his existence and believers do not have any kind of proof for it either. But since faith is not about proof in the first place this thread probably will never get satisfying answers for unbelievers.

 

I don't deny God's non-existence when I say there's no concrete evidence for his non-existence and that non-believers do not have any kind of proof for it either. But since faith is about proof and not credulity, unbelievers will only get satisfying answers if they are looking for them.

 

I know you're trying to be smart/funny by turning it around but how can you as a believer say faith is about proof?
Also, it's not certain at all they will find satisfying answers if they look for them. Same with believers of course. I just think questions about God's existence shouldn't be tried to be answered with evidence and facts since those will only be subjective. And why proof faith anyway?

 

The reason to not believing in God is the complete lack of reason to believe in God. This is being rational. Believing without reason is being irrational. You don't get to invent your own definition of rationality here.

Just to be clear, I do not deny the possibility that God could exist. That's not the position of 99% of atheists. We don't believe in God for the exact same reason as we don't believe in the tooth fairy. When we say that "God doesn't exist" it's like saying "wererats and owlbears don't exist". They could very well exist but there would be no rational reason to believe that.

 

there is no way to prove the existence of God, and almost certainly never will be.

 

same goes for disproving God's existence.

 

The absence of proof for a positive is equal to a negative in our context though. So not being able to prove God's existence is the same is having disproved it outright. You can't prove a negative but that shouldn't give any credence to completely unfounded positive statements.

 

to me everything is like a giant puzzle with pieces that fit together. i don't believe in opposing forces, i think god and the devil are one in the same. even if they were not, god gave us the devil and therefore the devil is of god. all these terrible things on earth that happen everyday which people attribute to evil forces. those things would not happen unless they were allowed to. god does not (always) step in to stop terrible things which happen to people, so either god is indifferent to bad things. or god manifests the evil as well as the good. which is why i conclude that everything is part of greater whole(god).

it's just my take on things, so come to your own conclusion.

 

too many people have been in life or death situations and walked out by the skin of their teeth. situations that would more often than not be fatal to a person. i don't believe in accidents or coincidences. the widespread secular attacks we see on religion in this day and age are not "rational" or "logical" by any means. these attacks are simply of a mean spirited and bitter nature. you can't see gravity or touch it, but you know it's there. science has never effectively shown us photos or illustrations of what gravity actually looks like. but we know from observation and through common sense that some unseen force anchors us down when we bounce upwards. science is great and all, but keep in mind not all scientists think like richard dawkins does.

 

believeing in religion and believing in god are two different things all together. religion is the product of the human mind indeed. but i ask you friend, what is it that made humans and every other form of life come about? you could say countless organic chemical reactions and you'd be correct. but who or what brought those chemical reactions about?

 

Nice try but no cookie, the absence of proof for a positive is equal to a negative, is just not true.

Did the absence of proof for the existence of a Babylonian king named Belshazzar and of an Assyrian king named Sargon, outside of the Bible record prove that they didn't exist?

No! Proof of both was found in the 19th century.

So just because no absolute proof exists yet, that proves to you that God exists, does not mean God does not exist.

 

That's not what I meant. In our context the absence of proof means that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE AT ALL. The possibility of existence means nothing. It's possible that the world is going to turn completely pink tomorrow. That gives absolutely no credence to the belief that it will, making belief irrational. If it has been outright disproven there is no grounds for belief. If there is no evidence to justify belief, there is no ground for belief. It's the same conclusion. That's what I meant.

The only difference is that there still is the possibility of evidence being found that would warrant belief. But until it does anyone belief is irrational.

 

Perhaps that is your context and you're welcome to it but it is not my context.

I personally feel there is plenty of proof and thus plenty of REASON TO BELIEVE that God exists. Perhaps that proof does not meet your "high" standards but it is good enough for me and many others.

I personally do not believe in "blind" faith but believe that a person needs a certain amount of proof before he should believe anything.

Your statement; "If there is no evidence to justify belief, there is no ground for belief." while true in of itself, is not necessarily a true statement, seeing as there are grounds for belief.

 

That would be wishful thinking, which you're entirely entitled to. That doesn't make it rational. I have never heard any "evidence" for God's existence that can actually be used to rationally posit God. Usually "evidence" to Christians means jumping to conclusions or using false logic.

 

Aside from a belief in God, what "irrational" statements have I made?

Because you have never heard of something, does that mean I haven't?

As for; "jumping to conclusions or using false logic", I've found that to be plentiful on both side of the question.

 

I didn't say that YOU have made any statements. You're not making an argument for the existence of God. If you would kindly explain to me your reasons why you believe God to exist, in the same way that I believe the computer I'm using or the chair I'm sitting on to exist then we can actually discuss it.

Also, atheists don't jump to conclusions. How is "I don't have any hard evidence for belief therefore I don't believe" jumping to a conclusion? If there was actually a rational reason to believe in God I would believe in God. So far no argument has ever been sufficient for me or the Christian to believe.

 

There many Philosophers that would argue that you can't prove the existence of your chair or computer either.

That's a good one. :smilielol5:

Not jumping to a conclusion would be to say; I have no hard evidence, so I neither believe nor disbelieve; saying I have no hard evidence therefore I don't believe, is jumping to a conclusion.

So you say.

I can believe no argument has ever been sufficient for you to believe but plenty of Christians have heard argument sufficient to believe.

 

They would at least make the distinction between something that is a permanent material object and something that's existence I have never perceived with my senses.

That's what I said. There is no evidence therefore I do not believe in God. I don't deny that God could exist, but that there COULD be a God has absolutely no real world implications. It doesn't entail any actions. It isn't the slightest justification for religious beliefs or postulates.

To believe in the existence of something material I have to have perceived it and then subjected the information from my perceptions to reason that has confirmed that what I perceived is what I believe it is. Without actual empirical evidence for God's existence any conclusions formed about His existence are arbitrary.