Just take the classic example and principle of a painting. A painting is absolute proof that there is a painter. You do not need to see, hear, touch or smell the painter to know that there is a painter. The painting itself is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist. You don't even need faith to "believe" this, only eyes that can see and a brain that WORKS. The same principle applies to creation or the universe. The existence of the universe itself is enough evidence for a creator.
Think of the human eye - it has 40 000 nerve endings, focusing muscles that move more than a 100 000 times a day and over a 137 000 000 light sensitive cells and even Charles Darwin, the father of evolution , himself said: "To suppose that the eye was formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
If you say "God does not exist", consider this: Something must have always existed, right? If nothing cannot produce something and yet something exists, then of course it logically follows that something has always existed. If there ever was a time that nothing existed, then nothing would exist now, but something exists now. Therefore there was NEVER a time that absolutely nothing existed. God exists and He promises in His Word: "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." -Jeremiah 29:12-14

No human could ever know the truth if there is and there no evidence that there is one only thing religions people say its in the bible well you know bible wrote by humans and I personally think its all made up and it must be easy to  just believe in Jesus and live forever after you die and see all your lost love ones but if you don't believe in Jesus you go to hell forever. Pretty selfish that we want to live forever but still had the chance to live a life.  you can go the easy way and go with religions that give you life's answers

I personally do not believe there is a God.
Not to judge anyone who does believe this is just my personal opinion.
I go off of facts and proof and so far I have seen nothing compelling enough to make me change my mind on the subject. In most cases there has even been evidence to disprove certain religions.
But none of that really matters to me people can believe what ever they want to each their own.
I respect every ones choices equally.

"No human could ever know the truth if there is and there no evidence that there is one"

You are claiming that no one could know AND there is no evidence. You're claiming that even if there were evidence, we still couldn't know. That's ridiculous! We believe that water is possible exists because there are rivers and oceans and lakes and whatnot. A good claim is that there is no evidence, therefore you don't think god exists. This is what EvilAlu says after you.

I would claim there is ample amount of evidence, evidence even more obvious than oceans of water. I'm not talking about "my parents said so" or even "Jesus came to the world" (although I believe that). Proof for the existence of God most evidently comes from the fact that you exist. I'm not even talking phenomonologically (not: you exist as you, if things were different it wouldn't be you), but instead metaphysically (fundamental causes).

Txgangsta : Erm, honestly, if we exist because God created us, then who in return created God?...

If you really look into it, there's a lot more proof for the Big Bang. Such an example is the heat all left over from the event (Even after Billions of years, if that long, probably even longer), Nya~.

I don't mind the idea of others thinking there is a God, despite being an absolute Atheist, but what I do have problems with is others saying that they know what their God wants, and what his "rules" are. Many scriptures were not even really translated well at all, and even didn't exist in many cases. Especially when they take these "rules" and force it on others, rather than themselves.

Isn't it good enough to just say "Be kind to everyone" and leave it at that, without adding all sorts of clauses and interpretations, Nya~?

MegaRevolution1 : That actually isn't my route at all. =)

The most common proof for God is as you described: we have to be creations so there is a creator. I don't like it specifically because its easy to misinterpret, and that's exactly what you did.

To make that proof work, you have to assume a soul (or also prove that). Also, the contradiction of ad infinitum and is messed up when you include time. The proof is NOT: my parents made me, they have parents that made them, etc, ergo God. Instead, to make it work, you have to say, "my parents made my body, but not my soul. My soul was made by something else. Since it is not physical, it is outside of time. There cannot be a series of infinite regression, ergo there must be an uncreated creator, ergo God."

I don't like that one. Too complicated. Too much you have to explain first before making the proof. Most people don't even realize how they're messing it up. Blah.

The one I was speaking of is called "contingency". Technically, Thomas Aquinas is the first to write this one (third way). Here's the basic order:

1. Stuff exists.
2. Ergo God.

I promise you it really is that simple. I'm going to draw it out so you understand what I mean. When the big bang happened, there was X amount of matter. This proof requires you understand that X is arbitrary. There could have been twice as much as X or half as much as X. Nevertheless, in our universe, there is X. What this means is that matter has nothing that demands its own existence. The carbon in the computer you type on could have just not been there in the explosion. There is nothing that requires it to be here. However, it is here (obviously). So lets say that X=0. No matter. No nothing. There was nothing to go bang in the first place. That's also entirely possible.

So, the question that we're really answering is "why is there something rather than nothing?". Existence either is or isn't. There can be nothing, or there can be something. Since we have something, there is existence. However, existence is given to matter/the universe by something else (known because of the arbitrariness/"existence is not matter"). Since existence is, that is actually our primary principle. God is Existence, or more commonly called Being. If stuff exists, it's because it comes from Existence.

MegaRevolution1 : To ask the question who created God is saying that God Himself is a creation, when He's not. God is unbounded by time or existence. Also you are talking about describing physical onto something that is supernatural. I read an analogy that I thought was pretty good of illustrating this: You cannot say "What does blue smell like?" It makes absolutely no sense, because blue is not associated with smell, but of sight. In the same way, we are talking about something that is supernatural. You can't ask about how God is physically created when God is beyond physical attributes.

Our existence is evidence that there is a God. Without a God, we don't exist. You can do the same with anything that humans do. If humans don't create, there would be nothing new. It makes no sense when nothing makes something. Obviously, nothing makes nothing, but something makes something.

How can you say that scripture is not translated really well when we have Christian and secular scholars who devote their lives understanding the ancient language and their work has been shown on how they translate the text word for word? (check BlueletterBible.com and click on Hebrew/Greek lexicon on any verse). Also the fact that Homer's poems have a lot less manuscripts to work with when translating, but we are still able to accept them.

You make it sound like the Bible is just a rulebook, when it's more than that. In fact, if someone were to says "the Bible is just a list of rules to follow," it tells me that they don't understand it or read it. It is a writing about God's story and interaction with humans and it is not enough to say "be kind to everyone" because there is a bigger problem that has plagued all of human history.

P.S.: This might be a little bit off topic, but I'll ask since you mentioned it. Did you know that the original developer of the concept of the Big Bang is also a believer in God?

Txgangsta : I like what you said, but maybe I am remembering wrong: Just wondering, was it Aquinas who said that?

play4fun: Aquinas didn't say the exact same thing, but it's in the same category of argument. This is what Aquinas said:

"Tertia via est sumpta ex possibili et necessario, quæ talis est. Invenimus enim in rebus quædam quæ sunt possibilia esse et non esse, cum quædam inveniantur generari et corrumpi, et per consequens possibilia esse et non esse. Impossibile est autem omnia quæ sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est. Si igitur omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus. Sed si hoc est verum, etiam nunc nihil esset, quia quod non est, non incipit esse nisi per aliquid quod est; si igitur nihil fuit ens, impossibile fuit quod aliquid inciperet esse, et sic modo nihil esset, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo omnia entia sunt possibilia, sed oportet aliquid esse necessarium in rebus. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suæ necessitatis aliunde, vel non habet. Non est autem possibile quod procedatur in infinitum in necessariis quæ habent causam suæ necessitatis, sicut nec in causis efficientibus, ut probatum est. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquid quod sit per se necessarium, non habens causam necessitatis aliunde, sed quod est causa necessitatis aliis, quod omnes dic*** Deum."

This is what he said in English (Wikipedia Translation):

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

From my understanding of Latin, the translation looks very good.

I have my beliefs and non-beliefs. I end up disproving my beliefs with logical answers though. So far, to this day, I haven't been believing much. But nobody really knows if he exists or not do we?

@Txgangsta


By tangible, I mean something I can perceive with one or more of my senses. Water, air, fire, metal, etc. are all tangible. But god...

Besides, which one are we talking about? Many claim that the god of the Christian Bible exists because we can't disprove him/her/it. And yet, no one has disproved the existence of the Greek and Roman Pantheon, nor of all the Indian Gods, nor of all those sects who claim to have had THE revelation...

janus : With that presupposition, I would have to prove to you a physical God existent from eternity. God is not physical, so because of your limitations on my means of proofs, I cannot do as you ask. The whole "God must be physical" is probably why you don't believe in him (my guess, correct me if I'm wrong). There is more than just the physical, and that I can prove with physicality.

I'm going to use 2 examples, both on the small side.

I wish to look at a proton. Not smaller than an electron, but still pretty small on anyone's scale. This proton, like all others, has a positive charge and a weight of 1.67x10^^-27. Then comes along a second proton. It has the same charge and weight. As does the third. And the fourth. And, in fact, all the protons. This actually shows us two different ways to get to immaterials. The first, most difficult to understand, is in the protons. All the protons have the same "arrangement". If a proton has a different weight or charge, it actually isn't a proton. The proton has this immaterial thing that is it's make-up. The weight is physical. The charge is physical. All it's other descriptions are physical. But an "arrangement" is not physical. The combination is what is innate to the proton. If one thing changes, it is no longer a proton. That was the hard one to understand, and I'm stealing from Plato. This easier one to understand I steal from Aquinas.

You know that the protons are all the same weight and charge. Have you observed all the protons? How do you know? They were only first observed in the 20th century. How do we know that all protons have the same qualities? We haven't looked at all of them. Further, how do we know that all water acts the same? Or iron? Or anything??? When we toss magnesium into water, it bubbles and hisses with a semi-violent reaction. How do we know that ALL magnesium/water reactions will act the same way? This is actually what David Hume (English Philosopher) proposed, and wanted to do away with science. But anyone in their right mind will just laugh at this and know that all protons have the same qualities and all magnesium reacts with all water. Its just obvious. But we don't have empirical (physical) data for it. We learn this through a limited experience. Yet, we have universal knowledge. This means that we received more than what was experienced physically. This means we understand "proton"ness and "water"ness, both of which you will not find empirical data for. Those are immaterials. More so, We receive these immaterials. We have an immaterial part to receive these. This part of us that receives immaterials I call a "soul".

Really when you think about it, we shouldn't have universal knowledge on particular experience. I have eaten wheat bread before. I know that eating wheat bread will not ever harm me. Those don't actually link. I've only experienced some wheat bread. What if the next time I eat wheat bread it sears my stomach lining and I die? Of course that isn't going to happen, but I have no data to say it wont. I'm assuming the future will act like the past. But I'm not just hoping that it does, there is a certainty within me that it will. I haven't experienced all of the future either. How do I know this? Universal knowledge does not make sense. Particular knowledge needs no soul or whatever, its just a collection of data. However, I'm making decisions off data that hasn't been collected. As do scientists and everyone else in the world.

Txgangsta: So to sum up what you said   If I say: "There is no God".  That is called an ABSOLUTE statement.  In order to make an absolute statement and be right, you have to have ABSOLUTE knowledge.  You have to know literally everything about that subject.  Example:  If I say:  "There are no diamonds in USA."  In order for that statement to be true, I have to know EVERYTHING about that country.  I have to know what is under the crust of the American soil, what is inside of every rock, what is inside the mouth of every MTV rapper, what is inside every jewelry store, what kind of ring / bling every person in that country is wearing. 
On the other hand, if I make the statement:  "There ARE diamonds in the USA."  I only need to see one ring with a diamond in it to know that there are diamonds in the US.  I can say with confidence that there are diamonds.  I only have to have a little knowledge.  Even a clever guy like Thomas Edison said:  "We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything."

Can one truly say that there is no God or even ask the question?  Oh, for the record - I'm talking about the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The God of the bible.

I consider myself a man of science and see no real prove to say that their really is.

What scientific data says the only way to truth is science?

In my opinion, there is not. There is no physical proof that there is.

MasterSheebie420 : I think you need to be more specific than that. Many men and women of science believe in God. 

Many people can believe in something, take for example the greek gods, i lot of ancient greek peoples worshiped and even lived their lives by the conducts of their religion, or their gods in this case. You can believe in something but that doesn't necessarily make it real, i mean a man of science as in i know of no physical evidence that proves without a doubt that their is a god, and science has helped us uncover: What makes up everything living, cells, and has helped humanity in so many ways that its not even funny, the only way to truth you say? I say that finding a cure to diseases is truth.

"You can believe in something but that doesn't necessarily make it real"

What scientific study says this? It's true, no doubt, but this conclusion isn't reached by modern science. Even if there were a study to try and prove this, it's conclusion could, technically, could just be altered by what those scientists believed.

Some things need philosophy, not modern science.

SoL@R : " So to sum up what you said   If I say: "There is no God".  That is called an ABSOLUTE statement.  In order to make an absolute statement and be right, you have to have ABSOLUTE knowledge. "

First of all, I pretty much agree with you. If an absolute statement is made then there should be , as you put it, absolute knowledge on the subject. In this case the statement "There is no God" is really vague. Just what exactly is this God? It is practically impossible to determine if their is a supernatural being or not when nothing is known about the being. Does this "God" even have the ability to interact with humans and the world they live in? If not it would be pretty damn hard to come to a conclusion one way or another.

With that said I have no problems saying "There is no Abrahamic God" because luckily the description of this God isn't as vague -- we do have knowledge of how this God (supposedly) behaves. I am of course talking about all the interactions between this God and humans found throughout the Bible. It doesn't matter how many times I pray for this God to spontaneously light a fire to prove that he is the true God, that fire will not get miraculously lit. That was referring to 1 Kings 18 if you aren't familiar with it.

I used this example in a different thread (or maybe it was this thread) but I want to use it again.
When I say  "the true God is named Jim" it is pretty tough to determine if this is true or not due to the vagueness like I described in the first paragraph. However, if I were to say " The true God is named Jim and he lives under a boulder in my backyard" you only need to look under the boulder to determine the truth. This is obviously a simplification of the topic but I feel like it portrays the reason why I feel justified in saying that  the Abrahamic God doesn't exist.

Absolute statements go both ways. If someone is going to state that a God exists they better have some absolute proof to back it up.

You can believe or not believe in a God; but nobody can prove whether or not He exists. God is of the spiritual level of things; while science applies to the physical aspect. You can't use science to prove the spiritual, you can't use logic to prove the spiritual. [in my beliefs] there will be a day when everyone knows whether or not there is a God and until then; it's senseless fighting over it. I've seen too many people get into heated debates on whether or not He exists & I fail to understand the point lol. Let people believe what they want to believe, if you shove your beliefs and opinions down their throat, you certainly aren't helping anybody.