Does God Exist?

[Conscentia]

Technically, the concept of God is ambiguous, but I'd rather believe in God and there turn out to be no God than to not believe in God and go to Hell.

1. If you believe in the omniscient god of Christianity, you don't think he'll know that you are only believing in him just to avoid hell? You think hedging your bets (selfishness) is salvation-worthy?
2. Belief is not a choice. One cannot choose what convinces you and what doesn't. If you think otherwise, you are simply lying to yourself.
3. Pretending to believe doesn't prevent you ending up in hell.

[Mojave]

These are the only gods I worship.

[Avenio]

The only evidence I need is the fact that I'm sitting here talking about Christianity. You see, soon after Jesus acceded, and when the early church was forming, the Romans appointed this guy named Nero to office.

Jesus, by most accounts, died in and around 30 AD. Nero ascended to the throne (not appointed - the Roman people had nothing to do with it) in 54 AD, 30 years after Jesus' death. So there was a period of at least 30 years when the Roman authorities made almost no notice of the Christians, and were allowed to do pretty much what they liked.

Now, Nero didn't like Christians. In fact, he hated them so much that he threw them unarmed into the Colosseum with wild animals just to watch them get torn apart, and covered other Christians in tar and used than to light his gardens.

None of this ever happened. Quite simply, these sorts of stories were created after the fact, largely by Christian writers. Nero was a hated emperor, and creating these sorts of stories helped curry favour with later Romans.

Not to mention that Nero's persecution of Christians was not for his own sake, but as a scapegoat to blame for starting the Great Fire of Rome in 66 AD - something very few Romans actually believed, and, again, was very unpopular.

Plus, that was just the first of many oppressive leaders that killed Christians for sport.

The only emperor who ever persecuted Christians as anything approaching a 'sport' was Galerius (and briefly, Diocletian, through Galerius' prodding), and he was extremely unpopular for it.

But here I am, talking to you about this while there are people in places like Saudi Arabia, where the mere mention of the name Jesus would most likely get you killed. So, I come to the conclusion that Jesus is real, since Christianity was able to survive such persecution.

Of course, Christianity's success also has a lot to do with the fact that it wasn't a 'threat' to the Roman state for much of its existence. They were persecuted sporadically as befitted their seditious refusal to offer sacrifice to the emperors, but it was only in the reign of Galerius was any concerted effort made to wipe them out - and, again, Galerius was extremely unpopular amongst everyone, Christians and pagans included, for it.

And the conveniently forgotten fact that once Constantine and his successors ascended the throne, the pagans also began to be marginalized and, eventually, persecuted. When being anything but Christian was liable to get your property confiscated from you, it's understandable that everyone at least in name became Christian.

[Conscentia]

These are the only gods I worship.
(Image)

The Eleventh Doctor clearly dismissed the concept of gods soon before destroying the parasitic false-god Akhaten.

[Shaggai]

There is a god. There are many gods. And they're all so weak that they need Other Gods to protect them.

Except Odin. Because Odin is cool.

[Viseria]

But, what if there's a different god? Not Yahweh, but Glorgblarg. And he doesn't like you praying to Yahweh. What then? You'll go to his hell unless you pray to him.
What about Blargglorg? He's just like those other two jerks.
Then there's Gggllrroa. He's like those two, but he's fine if you're just not praying to anyone.
Therefore, be an atheist rather than playing pascal's unbelievably low-odds lottery.

F*** Gggllrroa, there should never be that many Gs at the start of a name. Blargglorg also has WAY to many Gs.

Well, the bible has the most followers, the most eye-witnesses of Jesus, and I was raised Catholic so might as well stay one. Oh, and the teachings fit in almost perfectly with my life style, since pretty much everything that is considered bad in the bible is considered bad in anyone's morals. The only extra thing is going to church on Sunday, which isn't that bad since the Catholics have the best music.

Please don't use the "Oh the Old Testament says [INSERT INSANE LAW HERE]". Those are mainly just folk tales passed down through the ages which somehow ended up as part of the religion. Please, no need to make any snide comments about the entire Bible being a folk tale.

I could say things but this pretty much sums it up.

I'll add my little bits:
If I need to justify there is a god, I am doing it wrong. (Faith-based issue)
If you 'don't need' to justify that there is not a god, you are both not using scientific means and are doing something wrong.

I have no reason to not be Christian. I have a few reasons to not be Atheist (Which I honestly am not going to waste time elaborating). That's good enough for me.

Last but not least, if I were to decide to not be Christian, it would be going to the 'Apathetic' group.

So yeah. God may or may not exist, but I'm going with the safer bet and with the thing that makes sense to me.

[Jukraina]

Technically, the concept of God is ambiguous, but I'd rather believe in God and there turn out to be no God than to not believe in God and go to Hell.

You also must hope that you believe in god that is real. And because there is a lot of options of god that exist, you have very little chance to believe in right god. And of course there is chance that there isn't god at all.

[Hydronium]

Yes or No?

I have no idea. Who is this Samaritan and what does he or she have to do with this?

Just make your point as if I said yes and I can tear apart all of the other holes. Meanwhile I can see if I remember anything about this Samaritan.

Thank God for Google:

He [Allah] said, "We have tempted thy people since thou didst leave them. The Samaritan has led them into error." Then Moses returned ...
they [the Israelites] said, "... and we cast them [(gold) ornaments], as the Samaritan also threw them, into the fire." (Then he brought out for them a Calf, a mere body that lowed; and they said, "This is your god, and the god of Moses, whom he has forgotten." ...) ...
Moses said, "And thou, Samaritan, what was thy business?" ...
-- Sura 20:85-88, 95 (Arberry, slightly adapted)

Compare to this statement from the Old Testament (1 Kings 16:24):

Then Omri bought the hill now known as Samaria from its owner, Shemer, for 150 pounds of silver. He built a city on it and called the city Samaria in honor of Shemer.

Moses received the 10 commandments around 1446 BC, but Samaria wasn't even owned by Israel until King Omri's Reign (882-871 B.C.). And since Islam's God (Allah) was wrong, then he must not be God, since God must be perfect, flawless in every way. If he is wrong in one way, who says he wasn't in another. But the Bible (KJV) has no contradictions. The reason why others are flawed is the editing. For example, the people that published the NIV also published "The Joys of Gay Sex," and "The Satanic Bible."


BTW: John 3:16

For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The reason why there is a "so" is the fact that the writer couldn't find an extreme enough word to comprehend how much God loved his people. He DIED for you. Why question that?

[Agymnum]

If I need to justify there is a god, I am doing it wrong. (Faith-based issue)

Faith is unscientific. Promoting faith in any manner over reason in logic is detrimental to our advancement as a species.

If you 'don't need' to justify that there is not a god, you are both not using scientific means and are doing something wrong.

Null hypothesis. The argument which makes the fewest and smallest assumptions is the most likely. We revert to the hypothesis of "no god" until a god is proven to exist.

Also, the burden of proof is on the holder of a belief, not on the skeptic. Otherwise I could establish a church based around the Invisible Pink Unicorn and claim it to be a valid, real religion. No proof that IPU doesn't exist; thus, it must exist.

So yeah. God may or may not exist, but I'm going with the safer bet and with the thing that makes sense to me.

Pascal's Wager, your so-called 'safer bet', is a logical fallacy.

[Divair]

A John 3:16 statement is almost unique to Christianity.

You don't have any clue what Pascal's Wager is, do you?

I'm going to assume that because I haven't gotten an answer, the answer is "no".

[Tsuntion]

Technically, the concept of God is ambiguous, but I'd rather believe in God and there turn out to be no God than to not believe in God and go to Hell.

What if, however, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true deity and She punishes people who believe ambiguous things without evidence? In that case, you're better off not believing.

[Lamaredia]

Eenope.

[Dyakovo]

BTW: John 3:16

For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The reason why there is a "so" is the fact that the writer couldn't find an extreme enough word to comprehend how much God loved his people. He DIED for you. Why question that?

Because its bullshit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Pascal's Wager logical trail, which I will proceed to tear down as well, so people who use it stop using it:

"God is, or He is not"

Fine, we are, so far, agreeing here, he may be or he may not be, sure.

"A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up."

Ok, if heads or tails will turn up, but I do not know, how am I supposed to wage on something I have 50% chance of winning the pot?

"According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions."

This makes valid sense, you cannot defend either one of them, at least not in an effective sense. Although Christianity and other theist schools of thought are even less effective at it.

"You must wager. (It's not optional.)"

Bullshit, every wager is optional. In fact, most people do not know if they really want to flip the coin or not.

"Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

If I win which one? What the hell are we even talking about? I can very well win the fact that God does not exist and die happily knowing my will wasn't bounded to that of an asshole god like the one in the bible. If I lose, does that mean I will still go to heaven because god will praise me for defying him?

This is where the wager starts to fall apart to be honest.

"Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite."

Also the fact that God may not exist can make a person infinitely happy, so this claim is bullshit. What you stake either way is YOUR one life here on Earth, why the fuck do I have to wage on my own life to either be dead and not have enjoyed my own life or be dead and be punished for it?

"And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."

No it doesn't. There are no "equal" risks of gain and of loss. This is merely a fabricated construct hat there are, but in reality it is quite a biased risk and gain as opposed to the loss. So the entire premise is bullshit.

[Darmadewa]

Thank you. Also, not all extremists follow the teachings of Islam. One of the rules Muhhamed gave for conduct in warfare was not to kill innocents. Another was not to kill trees. (That last one makes sense in context.) Plenty of extremists have killed both. Also, killing Christians and Jews was wrong, as they were also Abrahamic religions. Extremists don't really count.

I have yet to read any of the Hadith, but what context is there to not kill trees?

I do not sure what does your post mean, but if you talk about what does it meant by not kill trees are not to purposely destroy any crops or plants or any of it in the area of attack without reasonable cause.

[Hydronium]

Technically, the concept of God is ambiguous, but I'd rather believe in God and there turn out to be no God than to not believe in God and go to Hell.

1. If you believe in the omniscient god of Christianity, you don't think he'll know that you are only believing in him just to avoid hell? You think hedging your bets (selfishness) is salvation-worthy?
2. Belief is not a choice. One cannot choose what convinces you and what doesn't. If you think otherwise, you are simply lying to yourself.
3. Pretending to believe doesn't prevent you ending up in hell.

I don't believe in him just because he saved me from hell. My life used to be a wreck, but now i am safe, happy, and free. He restored my soul. And now i am here, telling you guys so that you may feel as loved as i do. And i look forward to the day that i will see my saviour

[Agymnum]

1. If you believe in the omniscient god of Christianity, you don't think he'll know that you are only believing in him just to avoid hell? You think hedging your bets (selfishness) is salvation-worthy?
2. Belief is not a choice. One cannot choose what convinces you and what doesn't. If you think otherwise, you are simply lying to yourself.
3. Pretending to believe doesn't prevent you ending up in hell.

I don't belive in him jsut because he saved me from hell. My life used to be a wreck, but now i am safe, happy.

And you believe God saved your life?

Or... more likely... your psyche utilized the concept of a God as a way to turn your life around.

[Hydronium]

I don't belive in him jsut because he saved me from hell. My life used to be a wreck, but now i am safe, happy.

And you believe God saved your life?

Or... more likely... your psyche utilized the concept of a God as a way to turn your life around.

No. I don't believe God saved me, i KNOW that god saved me. And loves me. And you, to. In fact, he loves mankind so much that he died for us. But, on the 3rd day, he rose again to ensure our salvation. Why reject that incredible love?

[Divair]

And you believe God saved your life?

Or... more likely... your psyche utilized the concept of a God as a way to turn your life around.

No. I don't believe God saved me, i KNOW that god saved me. And loves me. And you, to. In fact, he loves mankind so much that he died for us. But, on the 3rd day, he rose again to ensure our salvation. Why reject that incredible love?

Ugh, you fundies are so repetitive.

[Mavorpen]

Why reject that incredible love?

Because it doesn't exist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And you believe God saved your life?

Or... more likely... your psyche utilized the concept of a God as a way to turn your life around.

No. I don't believe God saved me, i KNOW that god saved me. And loves me. And you, to. In fact, he loves mankind so much that he died for us. But, on the 3rd day, he rose again to ensure our salvation. Why reject that incredible love?

Because there is no reason to believe that a deity can actually interfere in human affairs. Or that it is certain that he exists.

[Agymnum]

Why reject that incredible love?

Can't reject something that never existed in the first place.

[Hydronium]

Actually, yes there is. A few years ago, there was a guy who wanted to disprove god. So he did a lot of research, and found something astonishing. On the day that Jesus was crucified, there was a humongous (think 8 Richter) earthquake that stirred up enough dust to blot out the sun, and there was a total lunar eclipse simultaneously with the earthquake. It really makes one think "My God, what happened to Jesus?!?"

[Divair]

Actually, yes there is. A few years ago, there was a guy who wanted to disprove god. So he did a lot of research, and found something astonishing. On the day that Jesus was crucified, there was a humongous (think 8 Richter) earthquake that stirred up enough dust to blot out the sun, and there was a total lunar eclipse simultaneously with the earthquake. It really makes one think "My God, what happened to Jesus?!?"

Source.

[Crysuko]

Actually, yes there is. A few years ago, there was a guy who wanted to disprove god. So he did a lot of research, and found something astonishing. On the day that Jesus was crucified, there was a humongous (think 8 Richter) earthquake that stirred up enough dust to blot out the sun, and there was a total lunar eclipse simultaneously with the earthquake. It really makes one think "My God, what happened to Jesus?!?"

Citation severely needed