Oh! There's nothing that proves there is no God, so he MUST be real then? What was I thinking?

Question

Some logic...

Answer 1

On the other hand, there's nothing that proves there is a god- there are various scientific theories that can explain our creation and almost any other question people tend to think as unanswerable and proof of God's existence. Believing in God can be good for a person though: it is proven provide psycological and emotional support, relieve stress and just help a person survive in most cases. So although my opinion is that he doesn't exist (There's no scientific proof he does or doesn't), believe what you think is correct, and spend some time forming your own opinion.

Answer 2

That all depends on the definition. If God is equal to or greater than all of the knowledge and power for all things great and small and for all time past, present and future than God is also possible by real, artificial or multiple creations and extensions of it's own design and will. Once immortality has been conquered man or otherwise can evolve through endlessly acquiring knowledge of all forms. The belief in one God can mean all inclusive or the original source through which all logic and awareness came. Hence; I am. To deny God is similar to denying your own existence. The collective consciousness of God and self.

Answer 3

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 4

Yeah, about as logical as, "There's no proof of god, so I guess there is no god."

Lack of proof doesn't cut it either way.

Answer 5

Have you ever come across a Babel fish?

.

Answer 6

Yes, of course, that's why we all believe in unicorns and leprechauns.

Answer 7

She... by the way does exist. I agree. haha