Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[kimberly5699]

The Pink Unicorn argument is a perfectly valid comparison up to a point; beyond that it becomes about interpretation of evidence.

My reason for bringing them up was that kimberly5699 seemed to be suggesting that her belief was justified even without supporting evidence. I wondered if my belief in the Unicorns could be similarly valid. Now, I don't think that any belief can actually be justified without sufficient supporting evidence, but once you start examining the arguments in favour of the respective books, that's when it becomes a genuine, significant, important discussion about what is likely to be true, rather than mere speculation about God, unicorns, fairies, whatever. Personally, I don't think the Christian God gets much further than being mere speculation, but that's all about availability and interpretation of evidence.

What happens when we look at the evidence? Well, my Unicorn book gives a description of the Universe and the history of the world which matches up much better with what we actually observe around us than the account in the Bible, so score one to the Unicorns. On the other hand, although I agree with Enigma that you give the last two millennia of Christians rather too much credit for "intense scrutiny", the Bible has done really rather well for itself, whereas the Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is something I just made up, so that puts the Bible out in the lead.

And obviously the arguments go on, and on, and on, but the point I was trying to make was that this kind of critical analysis and logical assessment of observable evidence is necessary if we're going to have any idea what the truth is, and that kimberly's claim that "greater is he that doesn't see and still believes than he who has seen" is not useful.

Since there is scientific proof verifying acounts in the bible to be accurate how can one discount the entire context. Scientists and archaeologists have proven the bible to be true.

[The Hungry Atheist]

Since there is scientific proof verifying acounts in the bible to be accurate how can one discount the entire context. Scientists and archaeologists have proven the bible to be true.

The point I was trying to make was that, once we start talking about scientific verification, your "greater is he who believes without seeing etc." argument has apparently been dismissed. If you believe in the Bible because of the scientific proofs of its contents, then surely faith becomes superfluous?

Also, no, scientists and archaeologists haven't "proven the bible to be true". Certain facts have been verified, yes, but many many things have been thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence.

[Lotan]

Since there is scientific proof verifying acounts in the bible to be accurate how can one discount the entire context. Scientists and archaeologists have proven the bible to be true.

Amazing.

Which scientists are you referring to?
Would it be the vast majority of those in the biological sciences who support the theory of evolution? Maybe the geologists who mapped the geologic column (and incidentally found no evidence for any global flood)? Or the physicists who have dated the oldest rocks on earth to 3.8 billion years? Maybe it was the astronomers and astrophysicists who have shown that our sun is but one of trillions in our 13 billion year old universe? Or the archaeologists who discovered the Sumerian account of the deluge, thousands of years older than the story of Noah?
Archaeology has shown that many of the peoples and places mentioned in the bible did exist, but unfortunately many of them didn't exist at the times the bible says they did. This is why many historians believe that the OT was compiled during the time of the Babylonian exile. There is very little evidence for any specific events or individuals. For a look at what real archaeologists have to say about the time of the patriarchs check out "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
As to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, scholars who employ historical critical methods to first century texts, including the NT (so-called liberal scholars) agree that many of the stories and sayings attributed to Jesus were later inventions. For an overview of the entire spectrum of bible scholarship, from ultraconservative to ultraliberal I recommend "Gospel Truth" by Russell Shorto.
It's one thing to disagree with the findings of science, but to say that "scientists and archaeologists have proven the bible to be true" is a huge fallacy, easily disproven, and any argument based upon it is worthless.
Do you really believe that all these scientists are wrong, or that they have deliberately bothered to try and disprove the bible?

[AlAyeti]

If keeping one's job and position sometimes means to lie and cheat, and misrepresent the truth (like a sinning preacher trying to hide his errors), which is a very human condition, then, scientists exist within this category by genetic proof.

They are only human, at best.

[Lotan]

They are only human, at best.

My point was simply that scientific findings do not support the historical veracity of the bible or the belief in the existence of god. If you would like to shift the argument to the topic of whether or not scientists are liars maybe you should start a thread on that topic, or at least provide evidence to support your view.

[mstreherne]

All the commonly accepted rules for debate about the nature of religion may have changed!

A new scriptural synthesis and Gnostic interpretation, [authorship unknown] which includes material from the OT/NT, Apocrypha, The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Nag Hammadi Library, to describe and teach the first wholly new Christian moral and spiritual paradigm for two thousand years is on the Net.

And this is the first ever religious teaching, able to demonstrate by an act of faith, its own efficacy! That is to say, the first living and testable proof of the living God has been published on the Net! However incredulous this may sound, if this teaching is confirmed, and there appear to be many who are attempting to do so, it can only be described as an intellectual and religious revolution in the making! The site where I found my copy of the manuscript [a 1.3mb pdf download] at is at www.energon.uklinux.net

This is no hoax and no joke. Check it out.

[bernee51]

And this is the first ever religious teaching, able to demonstrate by an act of faith, its own efficacy!

What a cool circular argument.

It can demonstrate it's own efficacy by just reading it (sort of like the bible). And all you need is 'faith'. All sounding very familiar.

That is to say, the first living and testable proof of the living God has been published on the Net!

where else would god stick proof but on the Net. How silly of me not to look there sooner.

However incredulous this may sound,

we can agree on that point

if this teaching is confirmed,

that should be IF

and there appear to be many who are attempting to do so, it can only be described as an intellectual and religious revolution in the making! The site where I found my copy of the manuscript [a 1.3mb pdf download] at is at www.energon.uklinux.net

Methinks I'lll wait for the mini-series

This is no hoax and no joke.

I have this really great bridge, newly built, interested?


(Oh moderator - please forgive me - mea culpa)

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! It seems that requiring hard (scientifically verifiable) evidence in order to come to a conclusion that God exists is counterintuitive. Acknowledging the existence of God is a matter of faith and therefore requiring evidence to do so defeats the purpose of faith.

[Nyril]

It seems that requiring hard (scientifically verifiable) evidence in order to come to a conclusion that God exists is counterintuitive.

Not really. If I told you that there was 3000 ton magical tree growing on the far side of Mars, and that same tree requires prayer, worship, blood, and money, in order to stave off its wrath, I imagine you would ask for something more then "Because I said it's there, and you can't prove it's not" to prove it is.

If we examine your statement:

Acknowledging the existence of God is a matter of faith and therefore requiring evidence to do so defeats the purpose of faith.

Why is that same logic not equally as valid when applied to the tree?

[An Observer]

It seems that requiring hard (scientifically verifiable) evidence in order to come to a conclusion that God exists is counterintuitive.

Not really. If I told you that there was 3000 ton magical tree growing on the far side of Mars, and that same tree requires prayer, worship, blood, and money, in order to stave off its wrath, I imagine you would ask for something more then "Because I said it's there, and you can't prove it's not" to prove it is.

The physical sciences are the study the physical universe (space and time). And physical sciences are dependent upon philosophical sciences (i.e. logic) that transcend, or are not limited by, space and time.

It seems to me that your 3000 ton magical tree is a physical thing, and if it exists there will be physical evidence of it.

Unlike your tree, proof of God's existence is not based on physical science. The proof is based on philosophical (including logical) science.

I have faith that I know some of the characteristics of God.

However, I know (based on logical proof) of the existence of God.