Does God Exist?

[Immoren]

Nature of the universe clearly attests existence of Eris. *nods*
Or not.
Perhaps it's Blue berry-applepie.

Either source or don't make jokes.

No jokes on the internet?
That's just silly.

[Jute]

More or less, yes. That goes for both sides. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence for a god/God, as science can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of any god/God.

Please learn the scientific method. If there is no proof for God that is proof against.

That is not correct. Lack of evidence may be evidence for the lack of something, but not proof. It might also mean that we can't detect what we are searching for with our instruments. Like I said, it's not possible to disprove or prove the existence of any god/God with normal scientific methods.

[Immoren]

"Proof" exists only in math, law and distilled beverages.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Please learn the scientific method. If there is no proof for God that is proof against.

That is not correct. Lack of evidence may be evidence for the lack of something, but not proof. It might also mean that we can't detect what we are searching for with our instruments. Like I said, it's not possible to disprove or prove the existence of any god/God with normal scientific methods.

Not a deist god, but a personal CAN BE DISPROVEN with any method. Whether it be scientific, historical, logical, or whatever evidence.
We can use it to disprove personal gods of religions

[Jute]

Please learn the scientific method. If there is no proof for God that is proof against.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

If you were told that a giant elephant walked through your house, you'd be gar untied that it would be trampled, with stuff broken and toppled and so on.
But if everything looked exactly as it usually did and nothing was amiss, you can be pretty damn certain no elephant walked through

The universe is pretty big, though, and something may lie behind the universe. And there might be an invisible hovering elephant somewhere, existing, but not being seen or perceived by us.

[Jute]

That is not correct. Lack of evidence may be evidence for the lack of something, but not proof. It might also mean that we can't detect what we are searching for with our instruments. Like I said, it's not possible to disprove or prove the existence of any god/God with normal scientific methods.

Not a deist god, but a personal CAN BE DISPROVEN with any method. Whether it be scientific, historical, logical, or whatever evidence.
We can use it to disprove personal gods of religions

How do you disprove something with the historical method? And like I said, the scientific method doesn't apply to the Christian god. You could maybe argue about the logical possibility of the existence of the Christian God, though.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

If you were told that a giant elephant walked through your house, you'd be gar untied that it would be trampled, with stuff broken and toppled and so on.
But if everything looked exactly as it usually did and nothing was amiss, you can be pretty damn certain no elephant walked through

The universe is pretty big, though, and something may lie behind the universe. And there might be an invisible hovering elephant somewhere, existing, but not being seen or perceived by us.

If that's the case than you wouldn't know either way. But you damn we'll know what I meant.
Gods of religions are almost always supposed to be directly responsible for things we can test, like miracles.
The reason personal gods can be disproven is because their properties are known to us.
If they were unknown it would be unfalsifiable and the religion would not exist

[Creepoc Infinite]

Not a deist god, but a personal CAN BE DISPROVEN with any method. Whether it be scientific, historical, logical, or whatever evidence.
We can use it to disprove personal gods of religions

How do you disprove something with the historical method? And like I said, the scientific method doesn't apply to the Christian god. You could maybe argue about the logical possibility of the existence of the Christian God, though.

Historical methods can work because what if a claim in the bible concerning god directly contradicts history?
Science can work because phenomenon previously explained by saying "god did it" is now explained to be perfectly natural things. If god contradicts science, that is evidence against it.
Logical arguments work because the descriptions of god in the bible are logistical nightmares.
Omnipotence paradox
Omniscience paradox
Omnibenevolence paradox
Omnipresence paradox and so on

[Jute]

It's good to hear that you accept both the possibility of a god in general and that a belief in a god can help people. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, and if you found comfort in atheism instead, that's good for you. But then you should be able to respect that others have found comfort in their own beliefs, and not tell them they're wrong, and that in a hostile way, too. Hostility will lead to nowhere. There's nothing wrong with friendly discussing the beliefs and lack of beliefs, even the pope has been approaching atheists for a dialogue, but out of respect for other human beings insults and the like should be avoided.

I have plenty of reasons to not respect religious beliefs. I can respect the people but not the religion they've been suckered into believing.
Religious beliefs are wrong through and through. And as time progresses religion will become less and less powerful and widespread until it eventually dies out, which will be the real beginning for mankind.
I would never believe in even a deist god, because I have no reason to

You neglect to acknowledge that some people willingly convert to another religion when they're adults, out of their own free will, when there's no one persuading them. And the rest sounds like the argument communists bring up. Religion has been with humans since the dawn of history and will continue to do so in the future, maybe less popular than today, maybe more popular, but it is unlikely that it will ever completely vanish.
And religious beliefs include values like compassion, equality and the like, so I don't agree that they're all wrong, except if you think these values are somehow wrong, too.

[Creepoc Infinite]

How do you disprove something with the historical method? And like I said, the scientific method doesn't apply to the Christian god. You could maybe argue about the logical possibility of the existence of the Christian God, though.

Historical methods can work because what if a claim in the bible concerning god directly contradicts history?
Science can work because phenomenon previously explained by saying "god did it" is now explained to be perfectly natural things. If god contradicts science, that is evidence against it.
Logical arguments work because the descriptions of god in the bible are logistical nightmares.
Omnipotence paradox
Omniscience paradox
Omnibenevolence paradox
Omnipresence paradox and so on

The Christian god makes no logical sense, it contradicts science and the bible is historically inaccurate
Not to mention the bible is self contradictory in many ways.

[The united states of Saints]

Historical methods can work because what if a claim in the bible concerning god directly contradicts history?
Science can work because phenomenon previously explained by saying "god did it" is now explained to be perfectly natural things. If god contradicts science, that is evidence against it.
Logical arguments work because the descriptions of god in the bible are logistical nightmares.
Omnipotence paradox
Omniscience paradox
Omnibenevolence paradox
Omnipresence paradox and so on

The Christian god makes no logical sense, it contradicts science and the bible is historically inaccurate
Not to mention the bible is self contradictory in many ways.

Provide examples please

[Creepoc Infinite]

I have plenty of reasons to not respect religious beliefs. I can respect the people but not the religion they've been suckered into believing.
Religious beliefs are wrong through and through. And as time progresses religion will become less and less powerful and widespread until it eventually dies out, which will be the real beginning for mankind.
I would never believe in even a deist god, because I have no reason to

You neglect to acknowledge that some people willingly convert to another religion when they're adults, out of their own free will, when there's no one persuading them. And the rest sounds like the argument communists bring up. Religion has been with humans since the dawn of history and will continue to do so in the future, maybe less popular than today, maybe more popular, but it is unlikely that it will ever completely vanish.
And religious beliefs include values like compassion, equality and the like, so I don't agree that they're all wrong, except if you think these values are somehow wrong, too.

No, I think that those certain values of compassion or whatever come with an extremely risky trade off. With those things comes bigotry, hatred, misery, war and suffering, or according to what you think, just ways to justify such things.
The overwhelming majority of religious people have made no choice in the matter, they are brought into it, with out their own choice. And although there are a few converts in adulthood here and there, the overwhelming majority believe that stuff without any good reason other than they don't know any better

[Distruzio]

The OT mostly. We primarily consider the OT an account of the Jewish proto-State attempting to justify itself and its actions against competing proto-States.

And the story of Jesus Christ?

The Story of Jesus Christ is to be taken literally.

[Distruzio]

... uh huh. But what does all that have to do with the Earth not falling into the Sun?

My point is, if God made it, you said and I quote, God isn't perfect. If the Earth's orbit remotely changed course or was off, the climate would drastically change and if it really went off course it could become like mercury or Venus. Mercury doesn't have a atmosphere since the sun could literally burn it off. Then again that doesn't happen because space has no friction, so the Earth remains at a constant speed and orbit. Which is explained in science. So if he wasn't perfect, then space would have issues, which could cause Earth to slow down thus falling into the Sun's gravity. Which nature and the universe are their own miracles not being owned by anyone.

I didn't say that God is not perfect. I said creation is not perfect.

[Creepoc Infinite]

The Christian god makes no logical sense, it contradicts science and the bible is historically inaccurate
Not to mention the bible is self contradictory in many ways.

Provide examples please

The earth is 6000 years old is completely false
The way god is described in the bible by Moses when he wandering in the small desert for forty years Is that of a volcano.
The bible alludes to the world being flat, bats being birds, humans living for 900 years.
A giant wooden boat, however wooden boats of the size described would bend and warp.

Historically, the trek through the desert didn't happen or at least we can't find any evidence it did, there is no compelling evidence Jesus ever existed, there are ancient texts older than the bible that has many parallels with the bible, a logical conclusion would be that it's plagiarized.
Jesus's life story is strikingly similar to Horus, Mithra, Attis, Krishna, Diyonissus, and and many others.

God was used to explain many natural phenomena that is now explained correctly by science.

God cannot be all powerful because can he be so powerful that he could limit his own power?
If god is everywhere, how can he also be an entity in one place (heaven) how can he walk through the garden of Eden?
If he is omnibenevolent, why does he allow suffering, death, disease, why does he want people to kill for him in the Old Testament, why does he wipe out people, destroy cities, kill indiscriminately, turn a blind eye to raped children and murderers?

If he is all knowing and all powerful doe that mean he can change the future that is all ready set because in order to know the future it has to be already set, which mean that the future was already set to be changed when he changes it which means he didn't change anything, therefore he cannot change the future if he's all knowing, and if he can't change the future, he isn't all powerful.

[Jute]

Would you care to explain to me why hostility towards religion is necessary?

9/11 - Terrorists justified this with their religion, but it is not actually supported by Islam. And what has this to do with Christianity or any other religion?
Holocaust - really? This was a political ideology that persecuted certain people, among those certain religious people. How do you even blame this on any religion?
Salem witch burnings Cover-up for secular reasons. As far as I know, the greediness of the local priest.
Crusades Not present in most religions, and the Soviets conducted something that could be called atheist crusades, see League of Militant Atheists
Pedophile catholic priests See the second point here. That crime is certainly not limited or more widespread among catholic priests.
Jihads Jihad actually refers to the defensive wars of the Muslims in the Middle Ages as well as an inner struggle with life, but the word has been abused by terrorists to justify their acts, and is not present in other major religions
Honor rape Not present in most religions, and not common in any, only with some fundamentalists, I'd argue
Slavery of Africans - This hasn't got to do anything with religion. It might have been justified with religion, but religion, especially not religion inherently, isn't the cause of slavery
Honor killings
Creationists - There are atheists conspiracies, too, who have a similar unscientific worldview. Not limited to religion
Pseudo scientists Same as above, not limited to religion.
The indoctrination of children
Bigotry against gays Actually, a lot of churches have no problems with homosexuals, some priests are homosexual, and some homosexual are religious
Rascism Nothing limited to religious people and not inherent to religion
Bigotry against Jews - So the religion Judaism is alright?
The excess violence and terrorism in the Middle East Please read up on the causes behind the rise of fundamentalism - it is a result of the imperialism and colonialism of the religion, and Western internvention, for example the Coup d'etat of the USA and UK in Iran 1953
Most wars throughout history - Wrong, statistics show that it's only 7 %. Source
Abuse of children sexual and physical - Nothing inherent to every religion, male circumcision is debatable
Misogyny - Not inherent to every religion, debatable in Christianity
Mentally Debilitating fear of hell Most religions don't have a hell, and most Christians do not in fact fear hell, if they do, atheism is not necessarily the cure.
And so on

[Creepoc Infinite]

And the story of Jesus Christ?

The Story of Jesus Christ is to be taken literally.

That story is not original
I.e
Horus
Mithra
Attis
Krishna
Hercules
Dionysus
All these mythical beings and more are older than Jesus and all of them have the same or similar bios to Jesus, such as having virgin mothers, being born on the same date, being resurrected, healing people and performing miracles, having followers, being the son of god (or a god themselves)
And many others

[Distruzio]

The Story of Jesus Christ is to be taken literally.

That story is not original
I.e
Horus
Mithra
Attis
Krishna
Hercules
Dionysus
All these mythical beings and more are older than Jesus and all of them have the same or similar bios to Jesus, such as having virgin mothers, being born on the same date, being resurrected, healing people and performing miracles, having followers, being the son of god (or a god themselves)
And many others

And? They are not Jesus Christ.

[Neutraligon]

Please learn the scientific method. If there is no proof for God that is proof against.

That is not correct. Lack of evidence may be evidence for the lack of something, but not proof. It might also mean that we can't detect what we are searching for with our instruments. Like I said, it's not possible to disprove or prove the existence of any god/God with normal scientific methods.

Depending on what you mean by prove, it is not possible for the scientific method to prove anything.

[Jute]

[...]
If he is omnibenevolent, why does he allow suffering, death, disease, why does he want people to kill for him in the Old Testament, why does he wipe out people, destroy cities, kill indiscriminately, turn a blind eye to raped children and murderers?
[...]

One: The bible is not meant to be taken literally, not even the pope does that, only some fringe groups, mostly in the USA, I've heard, no offense.
Two: I'd argue God would want us to be grown ups, adults who are able to solve their own problems, and don't rely on any fatherly figure to solve their problems for them.
Three: The God in the New Testament (which is the one that counts more for Christians) is different from the one in the Old Testament. He becomes omnibenevolent after Jesus died for your sins, as the Christians say.

[Creepoc Infinite]

9/11 - Terrorists justified this with their religion, but it is not actually supported by Islam. And what has this to do with Christianity or any other religion?
Holocaust - really? This was a political ideology that persecuted certain people, among those certain religious people. How do you even blame this on any religion?
Salem witch burnings Cover-up for secular reasons. As far as I know, the greediness of the local priest.
Crusades Not present in most religions, and the Soviets conducted something that could be called atheist crusades, see League of Militant Atheists
Pedophile catholic priests See the second point here. That crime is certainly not limited or more widespread among catholic priests.
Jihads Jihad actually refers to the defensive wars of the Muslims in the Middle Ages as well as an inner struggle with life, but the word has been abused by terrorists to justify their acts, and is not present in other major religions
Honor rape Not present in most religions, and not common in any, only with some fundamentalists, I'd argue
Slavery of Africans - This hasn't got to do anything with religion. It might have been justified with religion, but religion, especially not religion inherently, isn't the cause of slavery
Honor killings
Creationists - There are atheists conspiracies, too, who have a similar unscientific worldview. Not limited to religion
Pseudo scientists Same as above, not limited to religion.
The indoctrination of children
Bigotry against gays Actually, a lot of churches have no problems with homosexuals, some priests are homosexual, and some homosexual are religious
Rascism Nothing limited to religious people and not inherent to religion
Bigotry against Jews - So the religion Judaism is alright?
The excess violence and terrorism in the Middle East Please read up on the causes behind the rise of fundamentalism - it is a result of the imperialism and colonialism of the religion, and Western internvention, for example the Coup d'etat of the USA and UK in Iran 1953
Most wars throughout history - Wrong, statistics show that it's only 7 %. Source
Abuse of children sexual and physical - Nothing inherent to every religion, male circumcision is debatable
Misogyny - Not inherent to every religion, debatable in Christianity
Mentally Debilitating fear of hell Most religions don't have a hell, and most Christians do not in fact fear hell, if they do, atheism is not necessarily the cure.
And so on

9/11 was supported by many Islamic extremists

Holocaust was overseen by hitler, who was Christian, and led a persecution of the Jews as a "mission given to him by god" as his autobiography states

Witch burnings- there was no secular conspiracy, and it was scapegoating that was justified by religious beliefs of Christians.

What Stalin did was not an atheist crusade, his killing of people had nothing to do with atheism and had everything to do with securing his own power and promoting a states religion that established him as something close to a god
The crusades was orchestrated by Christian zealots who killed over a million Muslims.

Jihad literally translates to holy war.

These things are not found in ALL RELIGION however in different religions at different times. I never said it was religion in general that did all this, I said that things like this were justified or related to religious beliefs.

[Calisu]

One: The bible is not meant to be taken literally, not even the pope does that, only some fringe groups, mostly in the USA, I've heard, no offense.
Two: I'd argue God would want us to be grown ups, adults who are able to solve their own problems, and don't rely on any fatherly figure to solve their problems for them.
Three: The God in the New Testament (which is the one that counts more for Christians) is different from the one in the Old Testament. He becomes omnibenevolent after Jesus died for your sins, as the Christians say.

One: Yes he does
Two: If God is omniscient then we cannot make any decision he doesn't know the outcome to
Three: If Jesus died for our sins why do we still have original sin?

[Jute]

That is not correct. Lack of evidence may be evidence for the lack of something, but not proof. It might also mean that we can't detect what we are searching for with our instruments. Like I said, it's not possible to disprove or prove the existence of any god/God with normal scientific methods.

Depending on what you mean by prove, it is not possible for the scientific method to prove anything.

Well, I'd count evolution as pretty much proven, not completely, since it is possible that a new and better theory will override it someday, but it is unlikely. Therefore it's the best explanation for the origin of species at the moment, and calling it "true" wouldn't be much of a stretch.
But I can't imagine any convincing proof like that for things outside the realm of natural science, like metaphysics.
And generally, that is the philosophical problem of knowledge. How can you know, and how can you know what you think you know is true, and so on. Might be another interesting topic, since for example "If there's evidence for it" is not sufficient, because how could you know you can trust your senses?

[Distruzio]

One: The bible is not meant to be taken literally, not even the pope does that, only some fringe groups, mostly in the USA, I've heard, no offense.
Two: I'd argue God would want us to be grown ups, adults who are able to solve their own problems, and don't rely on any fatherly figure to solve their problems for them.
Three: The God in the New Testament (which is the one that counts more for Christians) is different from the one in the Old Testament. He becomes omnibenevolent after Jesus died for your sins, as the Christians say.

One: Yes he does
Two: If God is omniscient then we cannot make any decision he doesn't know the outcome to
Three: If Jesus died for our sins why do we still have original sin?

1: "Truth" is not literalism.
2: True. But it is not a challenge to our libertarian will. It's more like looking through a bubble. When you do so, you see everything on this side of the bubble, everything inside it, and everything on the otherside of it.
3: We don't.

[Calisu]

One: Yes he does
Two: If God is omniscient then we cannot make any decision he doesn't know the outcome to
Three: If Jesus died for our sins why do we still have original sin?

1: "Truth" is not literalism.
2: True. But it is not a challenge to our libertarian will. It's more like looking through a bubble. When you do so, you see everything on this side of the bubble, everything inside it, and everything on the otherside of it.
3: We don't.

If we no longer have original sin why haven't we been allowed back into the Garden of Eden?