English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

He made us to question him, everything he does he wants us to wonder, he gave us free will, a will to live, hill and torture and yet some ppl believe he cant exist because of this, but do humans not really exist because we are the ones doing it

2006-12-01 10:50:25 · 14 answers · asked by msim225 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

My proof is that if you thin about it he is the ultimate scientist hewas the heavy matter before the big bang, he was the big bang, he is the universe, he is evry bit you and I, he loves us, because we don't take his creation for granted and he forgive those who do, he set off the chain of events causing evolution, this is my proof because i understand the concept of free will he guides our every move but the future is in our hands

2006-12-01 11:04:37 · update #1

where to start, I don't beleive everything in the bible, i don't feel the need to prove he exists i just want to kno what proof you have he dosnt, he is a habit I'd pefer to call god yeweh or she but i never do, is it important to you if god a phisical being, no hes not he is not a physical being

2006-12-01 11:12:56 · update #2

ok you all made good points excepth the fourteenth guy, he made no sense whatsoever, yeah i could, but why would I

2006-12-01 11:25:35 · update #3

14 answers

Prove to the world he does without using something written by man as your source. Remember that a story passed from person to person always changes. Also, never forget, those with the desire for power and control and the means to use it will never let you know the truth, so long as it can be detrimental to their power.

2006-12-01 11:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by darkangel 1 · 0 0

As has been stated EVERY time that this question is asked (and if you'd paid attention to the similar question bar that pops up when you typed yours in, you'd have seen that), the burden of evidence is strictly held by those attempting to prove existence. Belief is not that evidence, because simply, if you believed you could fly, and then jumped off a building, you would fall. Things cannot be proven not to exist.

2006-12-01 11:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 0 0

If you have 5 shoe boxes and only 4 of them have shoes, does that mean their are "non-shoes" in the empty box? No. It is an empty box. We only understand the universe by the finite things and their finite relationships to eachother. The number of non-existent things is infinite. Allow me to prove it with the shoe box example. I want you to create a list of all the non-things that are in that box. This would be a list of anything that could fit, combinations of small things, giant things scaled down to fit, things that don't exist, things only other people would think of. You would literally be working on that list for the rest of your life and not be done. Humans only understand the universe in terms of existent things. This is why it requires faith to believe in something you don't have evidence for and it does not require faith to NOT believe in leprechauns, unicorns, flying jello elephants, a shoebox full of non-existant buttons, or the infinite list which you haven't asked for proof of.

2006-12-01 11:21:24 · answer #3 · answered by One & only bob 4 · 0 0

Ok, for the 1,000th time.
I have no proof, only evidence. i don't even have "proof" that gravity will continue to function tomorrow.

What proof do you have that krishna doesn't exist? Or Ahura Mazda? Zeus?

That may seem like a cop-out to you, but if you think about it you will see that you are in the same position we are in.

You say, out of 1,000 gods, 999 do no exist. I say all 1,000 do not exist. Are we really so different?

2006-12-01 10:52:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

What is the problem with Atheism?

Atheism is more than just a problem for faith. It fails to qualify as science. A good science pursues naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. The tradition of biology begun with Charles Darwin in 1859 and running down to the present time is good science. Darwinism provides the most adequate natural explanations for the evolution of one species out of a previous species. As good science, it avoids saying anything about God’s action in the world. Because science tells us how creatures act with regard to one another, we do not expect science to say anything directly about the creator. For a scientist to conclude that there is no God - which is the conclusion of the atheist - is simply unwarranted by the science. Atheism fails to be scientific, because science deals with the world of creatures, not the realm of the creator.

2006-12-01 10:54:11 · answer #5 · answered by St. Mike 4 · 0 1

Believe it or not, the bible itself is proof he does not exist. If you would read the book Misquoting Jesus you'd see that there is now rock solid PROOF that a majority of the bible is false and made up by translators and scribes.

Besides that, what proof do you have that he DOES exist?

2006-12-01 10:53:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Proof isn't my responsibility. Those who make the positive assertion, "God exists", have the burden of proof resting squarely upon THEIR shoulders. Those who take the negative stance (negative meaning disagreeing or skeptical) are on solid philosophical ground. Skepticism is the default position and is justified until those who assert a positive stance can provide proof for their stance.

If every assertion were accepted as true until proven false, we would be required to believe in every delusion, flight of fancy, imaginary creature, etc etc. If I proposed that there was an invisible teapot orbiting Mars and that you would just have to accept my proposal on faith until you can prove it wrong... how would you respond? You would tell me that I had to prove it first and that you were in no way required to believe in my teapot until it was proven to exist.

The United States system of justice works in quite the same way. "Innocent until proven guilty". The accused is considered innocent of the crime they allegedly committed until damning evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt demonstrates their guilt. Likewise, we must NOT believe until evidence demonstrates the existence of your deity (or any deity).

2006-12-01 10:52:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

why do you call God He? Do you believe God has an actual physical form and it is male? God is all knowing but how can he know what it is like to be female if he is male? So by your own words, you do not believe God is all knowing. So therefore YOU do not believe in God. But thats okay because God does not believe in you either.

2006-12-01 11:09:51 · answer #8 · answered by al p 3 · 0 0

Do you want me to accept that God exists even when you have not offered any proof that He exists.

2006-12-01 10:54:57 · answer #9 · answered by curious 4 · 0 0

I believe in God but what proof do you have that he DOES exist?

2006-12-01 10:53:22 · answer #10 · answered by kdesky3 2 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers