[NaphthenePalmitate]

you can't prove God isn't real. Not absolutely anyway.

You also can't prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world and all we know with his noodly appendages. Nor that Global warming isn't the result of a decreased pirate population [As the pirate population declined the temperature of the earth has increased, therefore global warming is the result of less pirates]. Also Samolia Has less carbon polution than anywhere else in the world, and they also have the most pirates.

My personal favorite is the religion I've founded.
Jaborah can't be disproven, and Jaborah is awesome.
Jaborah created the world with 5 days of hard work. And after that fifth day Jaborah decided to through a party. All the god's got pretty hammered. Some punk ass god Jehova started causes problems at the party with some really mixed messages to his girlfriend about how he loved her unconditionally with conditions. And that if the conditions weren't met he was gonna kill her. So, they kicked Jehova out and everyone partied the night on. Anubis was sooooo high, and Venus was all up on Susano's [censored]. Orochi was drunk again [he sure love's his Sake] and Thor was chillin' with Zeus having fun with thunder.

It was a good time so Jeborah threw another party the next day. And all was good. The next day, All the god's were hung over and Jeborah declared that day hangover day.

Jeborah decided that everyone should work 5 days a week and at the end of the last day the optional party is highly recommended. The sixth day another party is also recommended and the 7th day is reserved for hangover recovery so one will be prepared to work the next work week.


Jeborah can't be disproven either, nor any of the other religion me and other's have "founded".

[Sprool]

This is basically the Bertrand Russell Cosmic Teapot postulation that you can't 100% prove a negative. I could tell you there was a teapot orbiting the sun and you would not be able to prove me wrong. Because you cannot definitively prove me wrong does this mean the teapot therefore exists? Of course not. You could never disprove it, you could only say you've not yet found it. It's the same for god.

[CliffordK]

The answer to that, of course, is that there are close to one billion teapots in orbit around the sun.
[] [] [] [] [] []

It all depends on how you phrase the question.

[lukaradulovic]

Exactly what do i mean? Who reallt knows? What is god is he man girl blakc white or evan mexican!

- Big T

simple, a potential, probably an entity percieving a higher number of dimensions, who created all this.

[Gordian Knot]

Well, whatever else he is, the Christian God is a plagiarist! A tidy part of stories in the Old Testament were ripped off from earlier religions to be used in the Bible. All supposedly the Word of God like he was the one who created them.

I'm not exactly sure what authority one should report this to!

[Titanscape]

You know God is real, when you experience Him, such as secret thoughts and memories revealed by a believer after prayer. And a clear conscience after repentance. All fears subside after prayer for Jesus' blood. The heart is refreshed after drinking living water in worship.

There is no revelation in history of a flying spaghetti monster. It is nonsense, whereas a just, merciful, loving and wise God like Elohim are different. The pattern Moses wrote of creation is simple to complex life.

[Sprool]

this does not form a very rational or satifying explanation to sceptics and non-believers.
I might as well say "since I have not experienced him I therefore know he does not exist."
Both arguments have equal validity.

[imatfaal]

this does not form a very rational or satifying explanation to sceptics and non-believers.
I might as well say "since I have not experienced him I therefore know he does not exist."
Both arguments have equal validity.

I hate to be on the side of the religious - but your argument is not valid.  Move it away from god:

I have seen a red pencil case - it exists. 
I have never seen a red pencil case therefore I know it does not exist.

You cannot prove a negative like that - or in this sort of case (non-existence) at all.  His argument requires proof which is not forthcoming - yours is void.

[Gordian Knot]

You know God is real, when you experience Him, such as secret thoughts and memories revealed by a believer after prayer. And a clear conscience after repentance. All fears subside after prayer for Jesus' blood. The heart is refreshed after drinking living water in worship.

There is no revelation in history of a flying spaghetti monster. It is nonsense, whereas a just, merciful, loving and wise God like Elohim are different. The pattern Moses wrote of creation is simple to complex life.

I think you missed the point! People have truly believed in their Gods for millennia. Centuries before the Christian God, people truly believed in Odin, and Zeus, and before their time Inanna. These people believed as devoutly as you do. But they were all deluded and you are not? Or to put it another way, if you are right in your belief, why weren't these other people right in their belief in ancient Gods.

[tony6789 (OP)]

wooowww i made this topic years ago lmao i was like 14 amd now im 19 when this topic was started hahahah

[Sprool]

wooowww i made this topic years ago lmao i was like 14 amd now im 19 when this topic was started hahahah

so have your views changed over time? The ususal heated forum debates about religion go round in circles; people who are opinionated enough to bother contributing seldom change their stance during such debates, no matter how logical or illogical the facts

[tony6789 (OP)]

well Marine Corps bootcamp turned me very religous, idk if its all real but it is comforting regardless

[RMorty]

I would like to start with sharing my favorite quote regarding the knowledge of the proof of God existence or lack thereof. 

"So are we going to give you the answer? Of course we are! In fact, we'll give you more than one of them!  Paul’s answer to the ultimate question of existence was: 'I don’t know, and that’s OK.'  Sean’s answer was this: 'I know that I don’t know.'  While Paul’s answer is a bit more comforting (at least to Paul), Sean’s is actually more useful.  Being aware that you don’t know is an important thing. Sean’s thinking goes something like this: 'I know that I don’t know.' 'I am also quite sure that you don’t know either.' 'I am even fairly confident that no one knows, and that no one ever has known; but, I don’t know that for sure.' 'I am somewhat less convinced that no one will ever know, but that is something that I will probably never know.' 'The one thing I am really, really sure about is that I just don’t know.' 'And you can quote me on that!" (hastings, 181-82)

Hastings, Sean and Paul Rosenberg. God Wants You Dead. Vera Verba, inc. 2007.

Let me explain my stance before I give my personal reasons.  First, anything I say must be taken as a theory with things that have yet to be understood. Second, I am not an atheist or an agnostic.  I think there is a god.  Third, I do not think God is an author.  If we have rules for life, I think those rules are what we refer to as, well, common sense.  It is very clear, even from a scientific standpoint, that the Qur' An and the bible have things in them that are clearly not a true god's word or are contradictory.  That has been a non-issue for me for a very long time.

Now approaching the question from the raw stance of, "did something make this stuff happen or not?"  This is what I have decided on. 

It is, in my opinion, as foolish to vindicate that there is no god as it is to vindicate that there is a god.  The best anyone can do is to find as much evidence as possible and make a decision.

My personal logic towards there probably being a god is "the hard problem."  If you aren't familiar with it when do a little research on the hard problem of consciousness and see if it doesn't blow your mind and make you look at reality with a different perspective.

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -Fit the Seventh

It would seem that the answer to this thread's question is one of two possibilities.

1. We find where the universe came from, where that came from, and so on until we find something that we can with absolute certainty say has always been and is just the way of nature.  I doubt that because it in itself is basically a non-sequitur.

2. We find where the universe came from, where that came from, and so on until we find something that we can with absolute certainty say is a creator.  I doubt that because it in itself is basically a non-sequitur.

Both of these are non-sequiturs because there can always be a question of where something came from.  "Certainty" is the part that is a non-sequitur.  So, I feel like I can safely say, "we will never know for certain."  Whether something has always been and just is or if a god is discovered and just is. What could possibly be done to answer where either one came from? 

It is an rolling extension of dead ends from a philosophical standpoint.

[Titanscape]

Some people look at where the universe, everything came from. Others at what it expresses. Others still at the historical theophanies. Some are amazed by complex life, and some of them disbelieve because of evils wars and other dark chaos.

Some people understand DNA, leading to faith, others think it explains things naturally and relieves need of faith.

Some think God must be, for that is where it all comes from. Some see the bigness and beauty of the universe as commanding faith, others think god can't be, the universe doesn't make sense...

Faith can come from philosophy, seeing. For others who believe for sight or philosophy, it can be proven wrong, other things convince.

Historical gods, now dead like Zeus, are so, because they saw power in Paul the apostle's ministry. Also later, Constantine heavy handedly  pushed for Christianity.

So chaos haters have a problem with European conversion.

God revealed in Israel captivates most people. Some need to see it themselves and some of them don't look in or give God a chance.

The ancient most god of India, Purusha, lost one third of his angels, so can be said to be alike or the same being as Elohim. Genesis' god.

I am one of those who needed God and found he was there, or was found by Him. This weighs more to me than philosophy. I had my own theophany.

I experienced presence and goodness, and never studied creation science. The experience is my lens and perspective.

Historical theophanies are blurred by other claims to similar experiences which disagree with those from the fifth century back.

Faith by definition is not delusion.

There is the matter of near death experiencers visions, peace, and knowledge that is evidently fact, which to some somehow comes from hallucinations. Hallucinations that know earthly details and facts. So far only one fold blind tested.

There is sense in the life of Jesus, and theophany, and history, and continuing gifts.

Jesus dealt with three major issues, disease, injustice and death. Truly godly stuff. Hard to believe, that all will rise from the dead and be judged. Evil, finished with. Good news if you can believe with great patience. This the message and power and by gifts and other works the Greeks, came to disbelieve Zeus and believe in Jesus. A real god. Not myth. Consistent, old and new testaments.

[Gordian Knot]

Titanscape said "Historical gods, now dead like Zeus, are so, because they saw power in Paul the apostle's ministry."

Wow, that is some statement. Any chance you could tell us where you unearthed this little bit of information? What about modern folk who still do believe in Zeus, or Odin. Just delusional, I guess? Not knowing that their Gods are dead.

There are several other gems in your post Titan, so allow me to choose the one that fascinated me the most to comment upon.

Your comment: "Faith by definition is not delusion." (emphasis added).

Faith, by definition, is not spaghetti either! I'm confused why you think what something is not defined as is in any way relevant, or material. I believe we all know the standard definitions of faith, so I will only add the word's origin, according to dictionary.com.

Word Origin.
1200–50; Middle English feith  < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit  < Latin fidem,  accusative of fidēs  trust, akin to fīdere  to trust.

To have faith is to trust that something is true. That trust can be based on something, like I have faith the sun will rise in the east in the morning. This trust is based on scientific evidence, plus a very basic understanding of physics.

Then there is trust that is based on personal belief. No evidence required. This is the bastion of religious faith. That evidence is not required to trust that it is true. (Note, I am not putting any spin on that statement, simply stating a fact).

This acceptance of faith without any evidence is a requirement of religious belief. The fact is that the Christian God has not chosen to announce his/her/its presence to humanity in a direct way for several thousand years.

There are plenty of humans who speak for God, but they themselves have no direct line to have a discussion with the almighty. Even the great religious leaders of the day, including the Pope of Catholicism has no apparent direct contact with God. He speaks for God, but he has never stated something to the effect that "I just got off the phone with God and this is what he told me."

This is the nut in the issue when it comes to nonbelievers. For a supreme being, he seems rather distant. Now a whole lot of people have told me that there is indeed proof of God, and that I simply refuse to see it.

The issue for me is that I have to trust another person's perception for the validity of that proof. Another human, just like me. That may be proof, or it may be their perception of proof. There is no way for me to know.

Faith without proof is nothing more, and nothing less, than a belief a person chooses to accept. To pretend that is is anything else is unwise.

[Titanscape]

How many medieval or modern Greeks or Romans, believed in Zeus? New agers have chosen to go back to ancient ancestors gods, that their ancestors no longer worshiped after found Christ crucified and resurrected, or they were forced by Constantine to take up Christendom. The latter a motive for new agers to go back.

In the book of Acts, many turn from idols. How many still worship Artemis of the Ephesians?

How many Germans always worshiped Odin?

When they, being the pagans saw Paul's and Peter's powers and John's, not forgetting the other converters, many chose Christ. Eventually like Latin, the worship of Mars died.

They were so taken by Jesus in Rome, before Paul visited, later they they preferred to die than worship Nero.

A delusion is insanity. A belief, even if false, is a sound minded conviction. Hebrews ch 11 defines Christian faith. Faith itself is evidence. The Pauline gifts and powers are still available and in use in Africa and South America, as two examples. About six million African pagans and others there convert to Jesus each year. The reports from S.A. are amazing demonstrations of power. Links by Bonnke and Global Awakening.

In Bogota Columbia church growth was explosive, and many turned from drug use, so sadly, many pastors are being killed by drug lords.

[Gordian Knot]

It may surprise you to know that Odin worship is alive and well today. Mostly in the Scandinavian countries.

Quote: A delusion is insanity. A belief, even if false, is a sound minded conviction.

Ah but who decides what is a delusion and what is a belief? You have one perspective. Others have different perspectives. All of them are decisions made by humans; why should yours be elevated above others?

Your entire answer is non-responsive. I ask again for a response to my main point. There are plenty of humans who speak for God, but they themselves have no direct line to have a discussion with the almighty. People speak for God. God does not speak for himself. People are flawed. How can we know that people's interpretation of God's Word is correct? We cannot!

[Titanscape]

What is said about belief is that we best respect other people's beliefs. And not call them delusional because they don't agree with us. Dawkins was being a bit disparaging when he called his book "The God Delusion"

The gifts and powers of the apostle Paul are available for the spiritual and disciplined. The author of the NT teaches it to the reader. Actually there is an ancient teaching called Lectio Divina, to ask the Spirit of Truth to teach you as you read. But I am mainly talking about revivalism, the revival of Pauline gifts and powers. The Catholics have a revival or renewal movement. Outside Catholicism, there are many revivals and historical ones. This is why I mention Jesus blood and the two examples of Ps Bonnke and the move called Global Awakening.

PJP2 did actually prophesy and many today still do. True, people can have gifts and misinterpret the scriptures.

On at least one occasion I heard a voice speak to me, with what sounds like wisdom. Others also speak of this. I am a revivalist, coming out from Catholicism.