Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Occupied Deutschland]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real. However, from an objective standpoint, there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God because God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe, and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help). Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved (unless He specifically reveals himself to us, in which case it would be proved that God exists). Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith. Let's leave it at that.

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

[Genivaria]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real. However, from an objective standpoint, there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God because God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe, and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help). Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved (unless He specifically reveals himself to us, in which case it would be proved that God exists). Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith. Let's leave it at that.

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

Isn't that pantheism?

Who am I? One name you might have for me is the world, or you might call me the universe, or perhaps God, or perhaps the Truth. I am All, and I am One. So, of course, this also means that I am you.

[Christian Pacific]

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

Isn't that pantheism?

Who am I? One name you might have for me is the world, or you might call me the universe, or perhaps God, or perhaps the Truth. I am All, and I am One. So, of course, this also means that I am you.

Pretty much.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

Isn't that pantheism?

Who am I? One name you might have for me is the world, or you might call me the universe, or perhaps God, or perhaps the Truth. I am All, and I am One. So, of course, this also means that I am you.

I suppose so. I always just blanketed it under with deism.

[Conscentia]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real. However, from an objective standpoint, there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God because God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe, and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help). Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved (unless He specifically reveals himself to us, in which case it would be proved that God exists). Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith. Let's leave it at that.

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

Seems redundant calling it "God".

[Mavorpen]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real. However, from an objective standpoint, there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God because God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe, and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help).

Being outside of the universe doesn't mean you can't provide evidence for it. Unless of course, God never interacts with the physical world, in which case, Christianity falls flat on its face.

Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved (unless He specifically reveals himself to us, in which case it would be proved that God exists). Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith. Let's leave it at that.

Yeah, no.

Not believing in unicorns doesn't take faith.
Not believing magical pixies tangle up my headphone chords when I put them in my pocket doesn't take faith.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

There is something greater than yourself; the physical universe is greater than you.

Greater in what way? It's larger, certainly, ...

Physical size (as you mentioned), ability to emit feeling tonalities, importance.

[People Who Say Ni]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real.

But why do you believe there is a god? "Being Christian" is not a good reason for being Christian.

God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe

What does this mean?

and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help)

What is the spirit and what is spirituality?

there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God

There is no way to 100% prove or disprove that anything in the world exists, but, depending on how we define knowledge, we can know beyond reasonable doubt whether something exists or not.

Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved

The Bible tells us specific properties about God. If we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that these properties are impossible, incompatible, improbable or illogical, the god hypothesis has been discredited.

Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Atheism Is not based on faith. An atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, not one who BELIEVES there is no God. Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind.

- What do you believe, in terms of religion, and why?
- If I told you there is an invisible, pink unicorn floating around the Earth, you probably wouldn't believe me - the claim is not only nonsensical, but it is also empty. There is simply no evidence to support the claim. The burden of proof is upon the theist, ie, the theist must provide evidence for God, it isn't the atheist who must disprove God.
- Remember that atheism is liberating and frees people from otherwise unnecessary religious rules or restrictions.

[People Who Say Ni]

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

Seems redundant calling it "God".

It is still a god in many respects, just not a personal or anthropomorphic one. Pantheism can be religious, many believe it to be the polar opposite of atheism, or non-religious. In many cases, pantheism simply re-defines the word "god".

[Super-Llamaland]

(I'm not Christian, BTW:)

Technically, we cannot fully disprove anything that is not self-contrary, we can only prove things.

For example:

Skeptic #123,583,054,873: "Unicorns do not exist!"
*impaled by unicorn horn 37 years later*

So, technically, all the things we've "disproved" could "re-prove" themselves, but all the things we have proved probably won't dis-prove themselves.

In other words, we have not disproved or proved the Christian God's existence, and we'll never fully dis-prove the Christian God's existence, and I can't think of any feasible ways to prove the Christian God's existence without God doing it himself.

God: Hello!
Skeptic #123,583,054,899: OMG! It's God!

In other words, both sides take faith, neither side has a major argument, and this is why tissues pop out of the box.

[UED]

Well said good sir

[People Who Say Ni]

Atheism is not faith-based. Many theists claim that atheism is a faith because atheists cannot prove God doesn't exist.
This is wrong because faith can be defined as belief in the absence of evidence. Atheism is not a belief, rather, atheism is the rejection of a belief that god exists, usually due to a lack of evidence or because of perceived contrary evidence.

Secondly, atheists do not need to prove that "God" does not exist. This can be shown with a simple analogy called Russel's Teapot (named after the famous/renowned atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russel).
""If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." Do you have to prove that the teapot does not exist before rejecting this claim? Of course not. Do you have to prove it in order for it to be a valid belief? Yes.

[People Who Say Ni]

In other words, both sides take faith, neither side has a major argument

I proudly present: Ni's Compendium Of [major] Atheist Arguments!

- Russel's Teapot:
Philosopher Bertrand Russel contended that there as a teapot orbiting the Earth. Even though this information is unfalsifiable, it is logically unsound to believe it.
Russel's Teapot can also be presented in the form of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which operates under the same ways. It implies that the burden of proof is upon the
theist.

- Occam's Razor:
Occam's Razor is a rational argument presented by Occam.
"Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."
In simple English, this translates to 'out of many possible explanation, choose the simplest one.'

- Hitchens' Razor:
Hitchen's Razor is a rational argument presented by Christopher Hitchens.
"Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
This argument shows that if the burden of proof is on a claimant and it is unfulfilled, it would be unreasonable to accept the claim.

- The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit:
The ultimate Boeing 747 gambit originates in the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It comes from a quote of Fred Hoyle:
"the chances of life occurring naturally are similar to those of a tornado assembling a Boeing [jumbo jet]"
According to Dawkins, this argument is self debating and the theist must then explain if the god was created by an intelligent designer or if there is a process able to create the god.
If the existance of highly complex life is improbable, then the existence of an even more complex god is even more improbable.

- The Argument From Free Will:
A being can not be omniscient and have free will at the same time, as this would require the entity to have knowledge of everything which will be, including
it's own future thoughts and actions. This puts a limit on the ability of the being. Because it knows every action it will ever do, it does not have the power to change
these actions, therefore, it does not have free will. Furthermore, the idea of having free will, a property of God, violates the laws of cause and effect (determinism).

- The Problem of Evil:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

- The Omnipotence Paradox:
If a being is able to perform any action, then it could theoretically create a task which it is unable to perform, hence, it can NOT perform any action.
If a being is not able to create this task, then there is something which it is unable to do, ergo, it is not omnipotent.

- Scripture Contradictions:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

...and these don't even scratch the surface...

If God is omnipotent, why did it take him days to create the Earth?
Why won't god heal amputees?
If god is perfect why did he create pain and suffering?
How did Noah fit millions of species onto his ark?
Why did all the marsupials migrate, on mass, to Australia only after the flood?
Why do innocent children have to suffer with terminal disease?
Why is it that a completely literal reading of the bible claims the Earth is 8000 years old?
Why can't god forgive people of sins after they die?
If god wants everyone to worship him or else, isnt he a tyrant?
Why would god make the worst person of all have power in a 'jail' of sinners?
Why did god not see the devil was evil?
If Jesus died for our sins, why do we have to go to hell to pay for them again?
If god wanted worship, why are there atheists?
Why would we have free will if we're meant to follow god's morals anyway?
Why can god have always existed but not the universe?
Doesn't god (and free will!) violate cause and effect?
If hell is for correcting sin, why does it only punish people?
We feel things with our bodily senses. As a soul, how would we 'feel' hell?
If god is perfect, why did he fail several times? Adam and eve defied him and he had to flood the Earth.
Why is there no conclusive evidence of miracles?
Why pray if god is omniscient?
Why live life to its fullest if you'll have a better life in heaven anyway?
Why are more atrocities commited in god's name than anything else?
Why would God give us the capability of logic and reason and expect us not to use it when it comes to belief in him?
How did Adam and Eve populate the earth through incest?

[Conscentia]

[...] In other words, both sides take faith, neither side has a major argument, [...]

That's simply not true. There are plenty of arguments against the existence Christian deity.

[Pey]

[...] In other words, both sides take faith, neither side has a major argument, [...]

That's simply not true. There are plenty of arguments against the existence Christian deity.

There are plenty of arguments for Christianity as well. For example, Job 26:7, states, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspendes the earth over nothing." This verse supports the theory of gravity, even though the book of job was written thousands of years ago. Gravity was not discovered until the 17th-18th century.

[Dyakovo]

That's simply not true. There are plenty of arguments against the existence Christian deity.

There are plenty of arguments for Christianity as well.¹ For example, Job 26:7, states, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspendes the earth over nothing." This verse supports the theory of gravity,² even though the book of job was written thousands of years ago. Gravity was not discovered until the 17th-18th century.

1: Not ones supported by evidence.
2: No, it really doesn't.

[Unitaristic Regions]

As a Christian, I am obviously inclined to believe that God is real. However, from an objective standpoint, there is almost no way to 100% prove or disprove the existence of God because God exists outside of the physical/material world/universe, and we can't escape into the Spiritual (unless we die, and a dead person won't be able of any help). Therefore, God cannot, under those conditions, be disproved or proved (unless He specifically reveals himself to us, in which case it would be proved that God exists). Ultimately, believing in God (and also not believing in God) takes faith. Let's leave it at that.

Your initial conditions may be incorrect.
God could well be the physical world/universe.

*uhm* pantheism, *uhm*, not theism.

[Sociobiology]

That's simply not true. There are plenty of arguments against the existence Christian deity.

There are plenty of arguments for Christianity as well. For example, Job 26:7, states, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspendes the earth over nothing." This verse supports the theory of gravity, even though the book of job was written thousands of years ago. Gravity was not discovered until the 17th-18th century.

no it really doesn't support the theory of gravity.
especially since it goes on to describe a flat layered world with a layer of liquid water suspended in the sky. .

a christian quoting the bible out of context, what a surprise.

[Sociobiology]

Something limited to empirical observation, for which I might add Hume would have sufficed if you would like a conclusive case-closed scenario. Inductive reasoning isn't really the end of everything as the last centuries have shown.

Nor does science actually encompass logic or maths.

Just use wikipedia to look for things like the Problem of Minds for instance, many things cannot be determined by science.

Formal science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

The mind is a product of biological processes. Neurology & psychology may one day be able to resolve this problem.

actually it already has the scientific method works because it is the the most reliable system for finding truth with limited information.
by only working from the least complex model to explain given information, it limits the problems created by limited knowledge and minds, thus homing in on actual truth with greater accuracy than any other approach can.
The existence of lunar landers and nuclear transformation are proof of that.

[Sociobiology]

[...] In other words, both sides take faith, neither side has a major argument, [...]

That's simply not true. There are plenty of arguments against the existence Christian deity.

all deities is either too undefined to be falsifiable or have been refuted.

[Pey]

There are plenty of arguments for Christianity as well.¹ For example, Job 26:7, states, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspendes the earth over nothing." This verse supports the theory of gravity,² even though the book of job was written thousands of years ago. Gravity was not discovered until the 17th-18th century.

1: Not ones supported by evidence.
2: No, it really doesn't.

It what sense does it not?

[Sociobiology]

Seems redundant calling it "God".

It is still a god in many respects, just not a personal or anthropomorphic one. Pantheism can be religious, many believe it to be the polar opposite of atheism, or non-religious. In many cases, pantheism simply re-defines the word "god".

in other words it superglues a term with all kinds of baggage on an already well defined ordinary object.

"god exists and by god I mean Phil Johnson who lives in apartment 2b."
so what makes Phil a god?
"Oh I ascribe nothing new to Phil by calling him god I just am."
Then why do it?
"uhm...."

[Sociobiology]

1: Not ones supported by evidence.
2: No, it really doesn't.

It what sense does it not?

the real question is in what sense does it.
how does that support gravity in anyway?
Really we want to see what kinds of mental gymnastics you need to connect the two.

[Pey]

It what sense does it not?

the real question is in what sense does it.
how does that support gravity in anyway?
Really we want to see what kinds of mental gymnastics you need to connect the two.

"Suspends the earth over nothing." It's not rocket science. The verse states that nothing is underneath the Earth, implying that some force, (gravity) must be at work.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

There's no evidence to disprove His existence, but there's countless evidence in favour of His existence through personal experiences, miracles and other events.