Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

i just need to ask a question regarding this thread (no insult to the op), what is the purpose of this thread? just a place for people to have healthy debate? or is it a serious question? and why isnt there a poll? a poll seems like it can help a little with the arguments people are making.

It's a serious question for a healthy debate. Doesn't mean you can't have fun though. And I doubt a poll would help... it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, it just matters what you argue.

[tyranim]

having statistics can seriously help people's arguments tho, what other way is there to get statistics other than polling?

[Glitch]

Of course God exists.

God is a belief, and as long as people believe, s/he will exist as a belief.

Existing as a higher being, on the other hand, cannot be proven and cannot really be debated.

[Demagog]

having statistics can seriously help people's arguments tho, what other way is there to get statistics other than polling?

I still don't see how statistics showing the beliefs of only people on this forum will do any good... I've seen gaming forums where 90% of people are atheists and gaming forums where 90% are theists, and the debates/discussion are pretty much all the same.

[Kamietsu]

Existing as a higher being, on the other hand, cannot be proven and cannot really be debated.

It can be debated easily, as can every single subject, object, and being can be debated easily.

[Glitch]

There is no way to either prove or disprove god.

E.G:

LOOK!  This fact disproves god!
No it doesn't, it was put there by god as a test of faith.

or

LOOK!  This fact proves god exists!
Erm, that fact needs more scientific study, I'm sure there's a logical explanation for it.

[tyranim]

alright, as a man who is impersonating a scientist, let me put an end to this debate...
peanut created the universe, but chocolate didnt like the attention peanut got. so chocolate decided to go into war with peanut. chocolate beat peanut into a pasty mixture in the final battle. afterwords, chocolate went into a pasty peanut covered coma from the exhaustion. after a few million years, peanut's most hideous abomination discovered chocolate's body, and thought it was food, resulting in the death of chocolate, and the birth of Reese's. when chocolate died, all of chocolate's bite sized minions went into an absolute paralysis. man continued eating this chocalaty accident...
and that is how the universe and Reese's was created... enjoy

[PhuzzY LogiK]

There is no way to either prove or disprove god.

E.G:

LOOK!  This fact disproves god!
No it doesn't, it was put there by god as a test of faith.

or

LOOK!  This fact proves god exists!
Erm, that fact needs more scientific study, I'm sure there's a logical explanation for it.

Actually, what you're presenting is more the idea of "the God of the gaps", i.e., anything that cannot be explained by current science is then pawned off on a higher being.  Given enough time (read: if we don't blow ourselves up first), I think science will advance far enough to end what we know as traditional religion.  I'd go so far as to say the only reason religion persists so strongly today is because of an ingrained ignorance and a nostalgia for tradition that permeates the political atmosphere.

But to your intended point, even if you consider religious debate fruitless, it is a forced necessity.  Even if you can't say without certainty if a god exists, the fact remains that people have enough conviction in their beliefs to act on them.  Let's not beat around the bush: religious zeal has a way of accompanying violence.  Not one major world religion is free from fanaticism that results in the death of innocent people.  If someone is willing to kill a complete stranger based on some conviction, isn't it natural to question the validity of that conviction?

Ignoring the violence issue, religion is an expression of some fundamental dimension of our humanity.  Humans have always asked why they are here and what their purpose is.  This impulse is what Tillich called our "ultimate concern", because how you answer these questions will dictate how you live your life (refusal to confront the questions is an implicit answer itself).  The traditions of religion are a very mainstream outlet for this impulse, but we must each answer it for ourselves.  Thus, although we may never be able to say if god exists or not, the question (and debate) is inevitable.

[Demagog]

Actually, what you're presenting is more the idea of "the God of the gaps", i.e., anything that cannot be explained by current science is then pawned off on a higher being.  Given enough time (read: if we don't blow ourselves up first), I think science will advance far enough to end what we know as traditional religion.  I'd go so far as to say the only reason religion persists so strongly today is because of an ingrained ignorance and a nostalgia for tradition that permeates the political atmosphere.

But to your intended point, even if you consider religious debate fruitless, it is a forced necessity.  Even if you can't say without certainty if a god exists, the fact remains that people have enough conviction in their beliefs to act on them.  Let's not beat around the bush: religious zeal has a way of accompanying violence.  Not one major world religion is free from fanaticism that results in the death of innocent people.  If someone is willing to kill a complete stranger based on some conviction, isn't it natural to question the validity of that conviction?

Ignoring the violence issue, religion is an expression of some fundamental dimension of our humanity.  Humans have always asked why they are here and what their purpose is.  This impulse is what Tillich called our "ultimate concern", because how you answer these questions will dictate how you live your life (refusal to confront the questions is an implicit answer itself).  The traditions of religion are a very mainstream outlet for this impulse, but we must each answer it for ourselves.  Thus, although we may never be able to say if god exists or not, the question (and debate) is inevitable.

Honestly I'm more inclined to believe that we will never be able to discover all the facts within the universe, even if our race/descendants exist into infinity. That's directed more towards a previous post of yours, but I think it's partially applicable here.

You also can't apply the actions of a small part of a population to the whole. Sure many religions (I won't say all because that's not something I know), especially the major ones, have had their fair share of zealots, but that's a personal issue, not a religious one. I'd say no matter what those people believed (as long as it's a strong belief), they'd act the same way once someone challenged their belief, whether religious or not. If you take highly suggestible people, you can mold their beliefs to whatever you want. Of course, it's easier if you strengthen their beliefs instead of leading them in a different direction, and that's why it's more of an issue with major religions. It's much easier to find suggestible Christians, Muslims, etc. because there are more of them. Not to mention how easy it is to send information over the internet, and how highly gullible people are. In summary, I'd say it's not a problem with the religion, it's a problem with the radicals in the religion.

[Zigabogado]

I would say you are stupid for believing it, for the lulz, but I now notice that ScaredGirl has logged here, so, I shall say that the topic is, unquestionable. We won't know, for a long time, at least. If he is real, then he will be real. If he is not, then he won't. The often topic is that humans are naturally stubborn, and can't be persuaded by claims. So, my answer is: No one knows.

[assassim]

ATHEISM = WIN

PR@Y M0aR

[dustnapyle]

all i have to say it that having faith is great, but believing their is a imaginary person that looks over everyone is a bit far for me.  how many people believe in the easter bunny, santa clause, leprechauns, or even zombies. if you want to say their is a god then you have to believe that Scientology is just as a good idea. well i guess that is my two cents