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".

[concerro]

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.

what is this logical proof?

[keltzkroz]

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?

First of all, 'faith' can be defined as 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence', a definition which suits our purpose. Now let us use your example of a 3000 ton Magical Tree on Mars, and that you believe in the existence of this particular tree.

The surface of Mars has already been mapped completely (although I have no clue about the resolution if its enough to reveal the existence of any Magical Trees, but for our purpose, lets say it has high enough resolution). Using the current information we have on Mars, we have no material evidence of the existence of any Magical Trees.

Now you, as a believer in this Tree, can insist that it does exist but we can't get any material evidence because of its magical nature. Your belief is then qualified to be called 'faith'. The same line of thinking can be applied to the faith that 'God does exist'.

[An Observer]

....

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

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

what is this logical proof?

The mere existence of the physical universe (space and time) requires something outside of space-time to create space-time. That something is God, the prerequisite of everything in space and time.

[ENIGMA]

....

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

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

what is this logical proof?

The mere existence of the physical universe (space and time) requires something outside of space-time to create space-time. That something is God, the prerequisite of everything in space and time.

Ah, proof by blatant assertion. That's a classic.

[An Observer]

....

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

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

what is this logical proof?

The mere existence of the physical universe (space and time) requires something outside of space-time to create space-time. That something is God, the prerequisite of everything in space and time.

Ah, proof by blatant assertion. That's a classic.

It is more than classic. It is obvious!

And I have already given my theory based on impossibility of past time being infininte. I.E. Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past. And somthing outside of time must have caused the beginning.

What else can I say? other than that I know of nothing in time that does not obey laws of causality.

[Nyril]

Lets slow down. Since I started the tree debate, I want to continue it a bit.

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.

The tree is magical. Magical.

Anything god gets that makes him unobservable from Earth, the tree gets as well, except in spell form. So the same reason you can't see god when I clearly hear pastors claim he is all around is, is the same magical reason you can't see the tree.

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

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

Why is your statement wrong when I apply it to my tree?

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

I have faith that I know some of the characteristics of my tree.

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

What statement can you make for god's existence, does not also support the existence of my tree? Now, do take heed to know that my tree created the Universe, everything, not your god, and only lives on Mars because it doesn't feel safe to turn its back on us.

[An Observer]

.........

What statement can you make for god's existence, does not also support the existence of my tree? Now, do take heed to know that my tree created the Universe, everything, not your god, and only lives on Mars because it doesn't feel safe to turn its back on us.

Your “tree” example parallels traditional Christianity.

There is evidence (although, possibly, not necessarily proof) that Jesus existed in bodily form. In the same way, if your tree exists (or existed) there would be some physical evidence of its existence.

Just as there is evidence that Jesus was one and the same as the eternal God (although not necessarily proof), if your tree was God there would be some evidence that it was God.

Assertion that either your tree or Jesus was one and the same as the eternal God, requires faith based on evidence (not knowledge based on proof).

Also, assertions about many of the characteristics about the eternal God, requires faith.

However, the existence of the eternal God is not known by faith. The existence of the eternal God, who’s existence transcends space-time, is known by logical necessity, not faith. The precondition of space time, must exists outside of space and time.

On a side note:
Some people assert that our limited human understanding of logic tricks us into thinking that God transcends space-time, and that God is not really there. But, in making that assertion, they presume that logical concepts should be presumed false if the concepts are inconsistent with our preconceived ideas (i.e. preconceived idea of the non-existence of a transcendent God). This assertion, however, gives license for negating all human thought, nihilism. And the assertion logically destroys the basis of itself.

[Xanadu Moo]

The fundamental difference between the tree analogy and the idea of God is that there is some evidence of a creator, both from the structure of the universe and from personal accounts dotted throughout history, plus the fact that most people throughout history have believed in a God. Not that that's a slam-dunk, but it's a far cry more legitimate than inventing an unknown quantity. It's a little insulting to the intelligence to have a hypothetical and whimsical entity compared with the concept of a God.

The hypothetical magic tree is a non sequitur. Group A is defined as unknown entities. By lumping absurdities within group A, the debater attempts to discredit all things in group A... i.e.-because absurdities exist within group A, therefore all members of group A must be absurd. Not a very logical approach. Furthermore, the debater has not shown in the first place what properties about the magic tree are to cause it to not likely exist, but assumes it a priori.

This also meets the fallacy that either both conditions must be true or both must be false, when in fact there is no such required connection.

[studiobum2004]

this is said hearing this from a high school student but you have to.for the people disproving god good luck for the people proving god stop trying. now for me you cant see it one way only, but both ways. yes science can not prove god nor can the disprove it. and yes religion spiritual can prove god but not by fact. for one, god is not a name you should give a greater power. Greeks had gods and they were more as idols. but besides that fact. for the believers take away religion and leave the bible and a greater power. now for the non believers take away the theorys and leave the facts. what do you get the way of life. for one thing theres creation. now to have creation you have to have a creator. simple fact. for years i've been sceptical about god but i had faith. now i have my own beliefs. if you take away of what i have mentioned before you have the way of life. i mean theres a book for guidance and theres facts that prove the book. like there will be springs under water. we prove that 20 years ago. also the earth well be cast away with and there will be another. we proved that because in 4 million years the sun will transform int a supernova and destroy every planet. cant argue can you nor can you argue the way of life. i mean look forget the name god. for one there has to be a greater power. who cares what it is its just there. you cant argue because something had to make the big bang happen. for athisest who go with science there was something that caused the big bang wasn't there. now whatever it was know one knows nor should the care. it just happened just like all other unexplainable things in this world. so don't try do figure out how we got here but what we can do in our short lives. i mean no offense to history its good and all but we can't explain everything thats why church is here to give us an understanding for things we do not understand. not to brainwash you saying there is a god. there just saying there is a greater power but we have move away from that understanding and really replaced it with science or god. thats why we try to disprove each other today. so its stupid for all of us in this world to argue a stamente everyone agree's with. for one you cant prove it or disprove it so just forget it and go on with your lives. its like beating a dead horse. your never going to change each others minds. but do belive this.theres something that made it happened and theres nothing you can do about it .

[Nyril]

The fundamental difference between the tree analogy and the idea of God is that there is some evidence of a creator, both from the structure of the universe and from personal accounts dotted throughout history, plus the fact that most people throughout history have believed in a God.

There is no evidence of the creator in the structure of the Universe, nor does a person account matter to me in the slightest. Roughly 3 million people in the United States has reportedly had an encounter with a UFO, but all of their accounts still doesn't make me a believer in UFO's.

Secondly. People did believe in gods, but they believed in a far wider range of them. We have all the interesting Greek/Roman gods, the various Norse gods, the Egyptian gods. So many cultures have had more then one god, by your argument this is also an argument for more then 1 god, not monotheism which I am assuming for the moment you follow.

It's a little insulting to the intelligence to have a hypothetical and whimsical entity compared with the concept of a God.

To me. Both are equally whimsical.

The hypothetical magic tree is a non sequitur.

The tree is a thing, not an argument.

Furthermore, the debater has not shown in the first place what properties about the magic tree are to cause it to not likely exist, but assumes it a priori.

Basically, anything you assign to your god, I assign to my tree, except in tree/spell form.