Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[DrakoLand]

The Christian god = the muslim god = the jewish god = pretty much all gods.

Hint: There is only one God.

Yeah!!

Each one has a different nature. Yes, he is the same God in theory, but different at the same time.

[Conscentia]

The Christian god = the muslim god = the jewish god = pretty much all gods.

Hint: There is only one God.

* Jewish god = YHWH = a Semetic god of war =/= (does not equal) Astarte or Asherah or Zeus or Odin or Agni or any other gods unrelated to YHWH.

Hint: History does not support the concept that all gods are actually one god under different names.

[The New United States]

There should be an "I have no idea" option.

I have no proof for or against, so I can't rightfully say "yes," "no," "probably," or "probably not."

[Conscentia]

There should be an "I have no idea" option.

I have no proof for or against, so I can't rightfully say "yes," "no," "probably," or "probably not."

If you have no idea, then you are not convinced that he does exist ergo you do not think he exists, ergo the answer is "probably not".

[The New United States]

There should be an "I have no idea" option.

I have no proof for or against, so I can't rightfully say "yes," "no," "probably," or "probably not."

If you have no idea, then you are not convinced that he does exist ergo you do not think he exists, ergo the answer is "probably not".

Nor am I convinced that He does not exist. There's no proof that YHWH is nonexistent, so why would I say that He probably is not real?

[Jormengand]

There's no proof that YHWH is nonexistent

Problem of evil, problem of suffering... well, let's start with those.

[The New United States]

There's no proof that YHWH is nonexistent

Problem of evil, problem of suffering... well, let's start with those.

Honestly, that wasn't the best argument I've ever heard... How does that disprove the supposed existence of the Abrahamic God?

[Jormengand]

Problem of evil, problem of suffering... well, let's start with those.

Honestly, that wasn't the best argument I've ever heard... How does that disprove the supposed existence of the Abrahamic God?

If he's all-loving, he wouldn't want us to suffer.
If he's all-powerful, he would be able to stop us suffering.
If he's all-knowing, he would know we were suffering.
If he knew we were suffering, didn't want us to suffer and was able to stop us suffering, then we would stop suffering.
He is all-loving
He is all-powerful
He is all-knowing
Therefore we are not suffering.

Underlined are statements that are clearly true. Bolded is a conclusion that is clearly false. Therefore, one of the italicised statements, all of which are properties of Yahweh, must be false. Thus, Yahweh cannot exist.

[Brickistan]

Problem of evil, problem of suffering... well, let's start with those.

Honestly, that wasn't the best argument I've ever heard... How does that disprove the supposed existence of the Abrahamic God?

You've got the burden of proof reversed.

If you believe that God is real then it's up to you to prove it. Until you do, then the assumption must be that the existence of God in no more likely than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That is, not likely at all.

[Freiheit Reich]

If we were talking about a human than you might be right; however, God does things for his reasons. He is a tough father-he loves us but he is not afraid to be tough on us when necessary to teach us a lesson (remember Sodom and Gommorah).

Imagine that someone had his personality, what would people think of him?

He would have a cult of personality around him. Think about famous dictators in history that accomplished a lot for their nation but at the cost of countless lives. Emperor Qin (ancient China) is one example that comes to mind. He is still honored in China because he accomplished a lot BUT he was also tough on any opponents. It was 'his way or the highway.'

We would honor him for his leadership and intelligence and accomplishments but fear him for his bloodthirsty ways.

[Jormengand]

We would honor him for his leadership and intelligence and accomplishments.

Destroying all the humans on earth but two does not show good leadership skills, or intelligence, or accomplishment. Neither does destroying two cities because some people in them were bad, nor ordering the stoning of people (With stones!) for random reasons.

[Freiheit Reich]

We would honor him for his leadership and intelligence and accomplishments.

Destroying all the humans on earth but two does not show good leadership skills, or intelligence, or accomplishment. Neither does destroying two cities because some people in them were bad, nor ordering the stoning of people (With stones!) for random reasons.

Emperor Qin also killed thousands for minor reasons as a way to ensure he was respected and fear. Fear is more powerful than love, perhaps God believes this as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

One example: Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[48][50]

This would be called 'tough leadership' and it is a way to ensure loyalty. God also killed many for the same reason. We honor God because we fear God.

[Jormengand]

Destroying all the humans on earth but two does not show good leadership skills, or intelligence, or accomplishment. Neither does destroying two cities because some people in them were bad, nor ordering the stoning of people (With stones!) for random reasons.

Emperor Qin also killed thousands for minor reasons as a way to ensure he was respected and fear. Fear is more powerful than love, perhaps God believes this as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

One example: Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[48][50]

This would be called 'tough leadership' and it is a way to ensure loyalty. God also killed many for the same reason. We honor God because we fear God.

Emperor Qin may have been feared, he might even have been respected, but he was not good.

[The New United States]

Honestly, that wasn't the best argument I've ever heard... How does that disprove the supposed existence of the Abrahamic God?

You've got the burden of proof reversed.

If you believe that God is real then it's up to you to prove it. Until you do, then the assumption must be that the existence of God in no more likely than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That is, not likely at all.

If you had actually read my first post, you'd see that I never said that He is real. I said that I don't know. There is no proof for or against, so why should I have to say "probably not?"

[Freiheit Reich]

Emperor Qin also killed thousands for minor reasons as a way to ensure he was respected and fear. Fear is more powerful than love, perhaps God believes this as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

One example: Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[48][50]

This would be called 'tough leadership' and it is a way to ensure loyalty. God also killed many for the same reason. We honor God because we fear God.

Emperor Qin may have been feared, he might even have been respected, but he was not good.

One would argue that the ends justify the means. Qin wanted to create a unified China while God wanted a society that honored and obeyed him. Both used harsh punishments to achieve their objectives.

[Jormengand]

Emperor Qin may have been feared, he might even have been respected, but he was not good.

One would argue that the ends justify the means. Qin wanted to create a unified China while God wanted a society that honored and obeyed him. Both used harsh punishments to achieve their objectives.

Qin succeeded. God failed. I stand testament to his failure, as do billions of people worldwide.

And what does that say about God?

[Jormengand]

You've got the burden of proof reversed.

If you believe that God is real then it's up to you to prove it. Until you do, then the assumption must be that the existence of God in no more likely than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That is, not likely at all.

If you had actually read my first post, you'd see that I never said that He is real. I said that I don't know. There is no proof for or against, so why should I have to say "probably not?"

First, there's some pretty conclusive proof that I've already explained. Second, Occam's Razor. Third, why would you say that the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn "Probably didn't exist" (Assuming you would)?

[United British Union]

I do believe He exists, yes.
Whilst many may argue that God does not exist due to a lack of evidence, it does not mean there is any evidence to prove He does not exist.

[Shilya]

I do believe He exists, yes.
Whilst many may argue that God does not exist due to a lack of evidence, it does not mean there is any evidence to prove He does not exist.

Do you believe in Vampires? Because no one has been able to prove that they don't exist either.

[Curiosityness]

No

[New Waterford]

I believe that He does exist.

[Freiheit Reich]

One would argue that the ends justify the means. Qin wanted to create a unified China while God wanted a society that honored and obeyed him. Both used harsh punishments to achieve their objectives.

Qin succeeded. God failed. I stand testament to his failure, as do billions of people worldwide.

And what does that say about God?

God decided he will give us more freedom to make our decisions. God did not fully fail as you say. He has billions of followers (Muslims, Jews, and Christians, although Muslims were led by a false prophet- they believe in the same God). His flood has made people respect his power.

[Freiheit Reich]

No

Who created you then?

[Brickistan]

You've got the burden of proof reversed.

If you believe that God is real then it's up to you to prove it. Until you do, then the assumption must be that the existence of God in no more likely than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That is, not likely at all.

If you had actually read my first post, you'd see that I never said that He is real. I said that I don't know. There is no proof for or against, so why should I have to say "probably not?"

The basic idea should be one of disbelief. You don't have to disprove anything, that's the default position. You always make the positive claim which may then be disproven.

I do believe He exists, yes.
Whilst many may argue that God does not exist due to a lack of evidence, it does not mean there is any evidence to prove He does not exist.

You won't find any evidence for or against the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, so does that exist? What about Allah, Thor, Odin, Shiva, Gaia, Ra, Osiris, and all the thousands upon thousands of gods that humans have worshiped throughout the ages.

As stated above, the burden of proof is upon you. Prove to me that God exists and then I might believe. Until then I'll maintain the default position of disbelief.

[The New United States]

First, there's some pretty conclusive proof that I've already explained.

Far from conclusive. Saying that He is not as altruistic as He is portrayed does not disprove His supposed existence, does it?

First, there's some pretty conclusive proof that I've already explained.

Explain how Occam's Razor applies to this.

Third, why would you say that the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn "Probably didn't exist" (Assuming you would)?

I wouldn't say that they don't exist, so don't assume I would.

The basic idea should be one of disbelief. You don't have to disprove anything, that's the default position. You always make the positive claim which may then be disproven.

And why should I disbelieve something, if I've got no evidence, either way? Isn't it fairer to assume nothing, until you have sufficient evidence?