Does God really exist?

Absolute absence of evidence means no possibility.
No. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm not arguing against unbelief. If you're not convinced you're not convinced, which is fine.
It doesn't make sense to say there is no possibility unless you know there is no possibility. You can't know that.
Agnosticism is more intellectually honest than atheism, sorry. At least if you're trying to declare something you expect others to accept.
Agnosticism is more honest than full faith theism too.

One can hold whatever private beliefs make sense in your own brain.
I SMH whenever anybody, theist or atheist, speaks with SO. MUCH. CONFIDENCE.

If you want to be irreproachable in your claims, agnosticism is the way to go.
And I'm not even agnostic.
 
I do not see why I should accept even the possibility of something which science has not detected? I will accept if there is some evidence.
Hi I am new to this forum, I hope you don't mind me commenting.
A thousand years ago people didn't have evidence or know of scientific proof that oxygen existed but it did. There is a difference between having evidence that something does not exist and not having found the evidence.
 
Hi I am new to this forum, I hope you don't mind me commenting.
A thousand years ago people didn't have evidence or know of scientific proof that oxygen existed but it did. There is a difference between having evidence that something does not exist and not having found the evidence.
You are right.
One cannot make safe conclusions about a phenomena, just because you are not familiar
with it.
One can assume that 'flying spaghetti monsters' do not exist (with good reason), but that
does not mean that one can say it is impossible for them to exist.

..and welcome to the forum. :)
 
Hi I am new to this forum, I hope you don't mind me commenting.
A thousand years ago people didn't have evidence or know of scientific proof that oxygen existed but it did. There is a difference between having evidence that something does not exist and not having found the evidence.
Hi did you introduce yourself on the introductions thread?
Always glad to see new names!!
 
Not always. It has been a major reason for war and cruelty in the world. You are welcome, you are not that type. I do not need it.
Yes, intuition or “God” has been frequently misused. But that is from improper use—not the concept of an Ultimate Reality that we can relate to as though a human. Thanks for assuming that I would call upon “God” for good things, not war, etc.
 
To answer the original question - I believe God exists because of the things I have seen in the bible and the changes I have seen after prayer.
I was brought up to believe there was a God but like most people I had some doubts whether he really existed. But in 2007 I read in the bible (Acts chapter 1 and 2) about receiving the Holy Spirit and saw that the apostles and early Christians spoke in tongues when this happened.
I repented of my sins and prayed to God for the Holy Spirit and began to start praying out loud in a language I did not know (speaking in tongues). To me this was the evidence I needed to be able to know that God is real as He had given me His Holy Spirit. This is available for everyone.
 
God reveals Himself to you when you seek Him out. Ive had so many times in my life where the unexplainable happens as a result of prayer or divine intervention.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
 
It has been a major reason for war and cruelty in the world
War and cruelty are due to a lot of things, usually down to the profound arrogance and lack of empathy inside people at times.
In my observation, while there do appear to be wars caused by religion, in reality religion is more the topic than the cause.

The cause is the arrogance, lack of empathy, and cruelty itself in people, and the us vs them mentality.

When people blame religion for wars, it's almost as if they are saying the war would not have happened if it weren't for religion, and in their mind, it then becomes something where they think wars and cruel things wouldn't happen if it weren't for religion, and i think that's not quite right.
The us vs them mentality, the lack of empathy, the intolerance for differences, the will to power, the insistence on having and abusing power.

That is the problem.

Religious ideas and institutions sometimes facilitate cruelty and abuse of power.
Religious ideas and institutions can sometimes serve a protective role, though weak or inconsistent as churches don't have the kind of power and reach of governments usually unless they are in bed with governments, contaminating both.

But I think there is actually something naturalistic in people's brains that causes cruelty and war. Millions of years of evolution and competition and fighting to put one's own genes into the next generation have more to do with cruelty and war than religion per se.

Religion can serve as a vehicle of bad things, and it can also serve as a counterpoint and inspiration to resistance. It is rarely in and of itself the sole cause of things, good or bad, in my opinion.
 
Not always. It has been a major reason for war and cruelty in the world.
Just further reflection -- it is human intolerance for difference that leads to fomenting conflict and then war.
Unfortunately, some religions more than others have an intolerance for other belief systems baked into them.
So I think that is why it appears that war is caused by religion.
People get the ideas in their heads about their own theology, how right and just it is, or how true, and if the belief system itself is inherently intolerant of other beliefs it creates an excuse to be restrictive, repressive, and cruel to others who do not agree with their beliefs.
Even so, is it the religion that "causes" the cruelty? I tend to think not... but interpretations of religion can create a troubling excuse for it.
Worse, a self righteous sense of goodness for doing wrong and cruel things to others or repressing or restricting other religions based on the idea "ours is right and all others are wrong"
That is not exclusive to religion.
But it remains amazing how passionately self assured people can be about the one thing that one definitely CANNOT BE SURE OF
(ie, supernatural realities)
 
Religious ideas and institutions sometimes facilitate cruelty and abuse of power.
That alone is sufficient for me, I do not associate with such ideas. I reject all apologetic explanations.
If religion cannot get humans rid of cruelty and abuse of power, then it is useless. We should think of something else.
 
If religion cannot get humans rid of cruelty and abuse of power, then it is useless. We should think of something else.
Well clearly it can and it does, so there's that ...

... and you'd end up doing away with every institution, as that's not where the fault lies.
 
If religion cannot get humans rid of cruelty and abuse of power, then it is useless.
It doesn't, but I wonder if the conclusion that it's useless is entirely defensible. Insufficient, maybe, if we agree that getting rid of cruelty and abuse of power were the goals of religion (those are good goals -but I don't know if religious institutions are consistent in pursuing those goals, even though there are scriptural and theological and real-life reasons they out to be -- religious institution and practice have additional goals and purposes, like helping communities and giving people a window into another reality, a set of metaphysics, a cultural touchstone, the inspiration to pray for help, the inspiration to help one another etc)
Well clearly it can and it does, so there's that ...
Does it?
Does it address the issue sometimes? Probably
I think it's better at its other goals like I mentioned
doing away with every institution,
That would require cruelty and abuse of power and would be bad, I agree
that's not where the fault lies.
Where does the fault lie?
I have an idea of what I think you mean which I think I agree with, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 
Where does the fault lie?
I have an idea of what I think you mean which I think I agree with, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I'd say the fault lies with ourselves.

I'd say the world's sacra doctrina offers the best commentaries and the best solutions to our ills ... there's something for every taste and inclination, but in the end they all point, in human affairs, which is the first step on the road, to the Golden Rule.
 
.. religious institution and practice have additional goals and purposes, like helping communities and giving people a window into another reality, a set of metaphysics, a cultural touchstone, the inspiration to pray for help, the inspiration to help one another etc)
That is good but that can be done even without asking for acceptance of a particular God or a particular messenger.
Metaphysics and you fall into a deep ditch. That is what Buddha said 'do not contemplate on' (Achinteyya - imponderables), it brings confusion and madness.
 
Back
Top