what is your personal opinion about the existance of god, other than scriptures. just your personal reason.?

Question

By me i have following sequence of thoughts.
1.- God is something not a physical entity. though this physical world is his creation.
2.- Science only deals with the physical things, which can be percieved by the our five senses, directly or by the help of instruments.
3.- so an answer by the eyes of this physical sciences is not possible.
4. for me, the reason no. one is , nothing can be made by itself, we need the initial substance, knowledge, tools, and a maker to make. not even one exception exists.
5. this world is too perfect, to be made by itself. for example, the milk with mother is ready, before the child comes in this world.
6. the only hypotheses which has confused me, when i was novice was, darwin's imagination of survival of the fittest, and the traits equired by that non existant theory. but it can not explain a very simple phenomenon, that why a dog in USA, and in India and in australia, lifts a leg, while peeing.
botom line-I want your personal reasons.Tks

Answer 1

DOES GOD EXIST?
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Who said this? Albert Einstein

Religion can use science to help prove that God does exist.
In 1916 Einstein didn’t like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein had always believed that the universe was static and eternal. That it was just here.
Einstein latter called his discovery “irritating.” He wanted the universe to be self-existent
--not reliant on any outside cause—but the universe appeared to be one giant effect.
In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a soar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true—the universe wasn’t static but had a beginning. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn’t happy with the implications. He later wrote, “Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me…..I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

These were some of the most intelligent men alive at the time, great scientist. They were trying to prove that the universe was static and did not have a beginning.
In 1922 Dutch astronomer William de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding.
In 1927, the expanding of the universe was actually observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble.
Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us. In other words General Relativity was again confirmed—the universe is expanding from a single point in the distant past.
This does not mean that we are at the center. (Use balloon example)
In 1929 Einstein went to Mount Wilson to look through Hubble’s telescope for himself.
What he saw was irrefutable. The observational evidence showed that the universe was indeed expanding as General Relativity had predicted. In Einstein’s desire to show the universe was static, he later said that it was “the greatest blunder of my life,” and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.”
And as of today the Theory of General Relativity stands as one of the strongest lines of evidence for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God—the Cosmological Argument.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The Cosmological Argument is the argument for the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause.
In logical form, the argument goes like this:
1.Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2.The universe had a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe had a cause.
For an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true?
Premise 1---Everything that had a beginning had a cause—is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. Because science is the search for causes. That’s what scientist do—they try to discover what caused what.
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true.
Premise 2—The universe had a beginning. If it didn’t , then no cause was needed. If it did, then the universe must have had a cause.
Until the time of Einstein, atheist could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause.
But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have a beginning. And that beginning was what scientists now call “The Big Bang”
Every so often major magazines will run a cover story like “When did the universe begin?” or “When will it end?”.
The fact that the universe had a beginning and will ultimately die is not even up for debate in the reports.
Why?
Because modern scientists know that a beginning and an ending are demanded by one of the most validated laws in all of nature—the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy, and the Second Law states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas.
So how does this prove that the universe had a beginning?
Well, lets look at it this way: the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy. If your car has 1 full tank of gas (first law), and if your car is running and consuming gas (second law), would your car be running right now if you had started it up an infinitely long time ago? No, it would be out of gas by now. In the same way, the universe would be out of energy by now if it had been running from all eternity.
But here we are and the lights are still on.
The Second Law is also know as the Law of Entropy, which is a fancy way of saying that nature tends to bring things to disorder. That is, with time, things naturally fall apart. Your car, your house, you fall apart.
But if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to a wound-up clock. If a wound-up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up.
This aspect of the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning. Since we still have some order left—just like we have some usable energy left—the universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete disorder (entropy) by now.

THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING
Good scientific theories are those that are able to predict phenomena that have not yet been observed. Einstein’s General Relativity predicted the expanding universe. But it wasn’t until Edwin Hubble looked through his telescope more that 10 years later that scientists finally confirmed that the universe is expanding and that it is expanding from a single point. This expanding universe is the second line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.
How does the expanding universe prove a beginning?
If we could watch a video recording of the expanding universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a single point, not even the size of a pin head, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (i.e., no space, no time, and no matter).
In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something—the entire universe exploded into being! This, of course, is what is commonly called the “Big Bang.”
Is the universe expanding into empty space?
No, the universe is expanding into space that is also expanding.

There was no space before the Big Bang.

In fact, chronologically, there was no “before” the Big Bang because there are no “Befores” without time, and there was no time until the Big Bang. Time, Space, and Matter came into existence at the Big Bang.
Atheists argue that as we go back in time before the Big Bang, to when there was no time, and to where there was no space, At this time before time, they imagine a swirling dust of mathematical points which recombine again and again and again and finally come by trial and error to form our space time universe.
This position is not even scientific theory but is actually self-contradictory pop-metaphysics.
It is pop-metaphysics because it’s a made-up explanation—there’s absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it.
It also self-contradictory because it assumes time and space before there was time and space.
This is the point that an Atheist has trouble explaining the beginning. They want to put something where nothing existed.

RADIATION FROM THE BIG BANG
The 3rd line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning was discovered by accident in 1965. That’s when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected strange radiation on their antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey. No matter where they turned their antenna, this mysterious radiation remained. They initially thought it might be the result of bird droppings from the nesting Jersey Shore Pigeons, so they had the pigeons and the droppings removed. But when they got back inside, they found that the radiation was still there, and it was coming from all directions.
What they had detected turned out to be one of the most incredible discoveries of the last century—one that would win them Nobel Prizes.
They had discovered the afterglow from the Big Bang fireball explosion.
Technically known as the cosmic background radiation.
Back in 1948 3 scientists had predicted that this radiation would be out there if the Big Bang did really occur.

GREAT GALAXY SEEDS
Scientists also predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred you would see slight variations (or ripples) in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation the Penzias and Wilson had discovered.
These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.
In 1989 the search for these ripples was intensified when NASA launched a satellite, carrying extremely sensitive instruments able to see whether or not these ripples actually existed in the background radiation and how precise they were.
In 1992, astronomer George Smoot, announced the findings of the satellite. He said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
NASA not only found the ripples, but scientists were amazed at their precision. The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself.
Any slight variation and none of us would be here to talk about it.
But these temperature ripples are not just dots on a scientists graph somewhere, or just some theory. The NASA satellite actually took infrared pictures of the ripples.
Also something to keep in mind, the pictures that the satellite took are of the past.

GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS
So the universe had a beginning. What does that mean for the question of God’s existence?
Scientist Robert Jastrow (atheist, then agnostic) observed in an interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…that there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
Arthur Eddington (who found his calculations “repugnant”, also an atheist, then agnostic) admitted, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”
Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe?
Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces—indeed all of nature—were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job. That’s exactly what the word supernatural means.

Hello God!

Answer 2

I hope your intelligence was not over insulted by the first answer you recieved, small minds, small lives. You are 100% right in your question, I have always been taught that GOD is a real person, In the book "embraced by the light" by Mary Jean Eddy, she says GOD is a real person, but there is a dvd out on quantum physics, called " what the bleep" (believee me it is VERY basic) it answers many questions like yours. I like the way you describe the universe being too perfect to have been created by chance, I use the example that as soon as we think something chemicals mix in the brain this cause's an electrical impulse which travels down a speciffic set of nerves, which stimulates a specific set of muscles just to pick up a cup of coffee and the whole process starts with the thought and it takes a fraction of a second, so if you think that we were not created by something just a tiny bit more intelligent than ourselves you are dreadfully dillusional or at best extremly ignorant.As for the dog thing, you kinda lost me there. peace.

Answer 3

Our personal opinion is dependant on what the LORD God has done and has said. He has a plan and purpose for mankind and it is so amazing that few can actually take it on board, it seems. If it were any other religious belief that we were talking about or any literary writing it would be only natural to quote from it. In fact I have listened to many a literary discussion in which totally fictitious characters of a book were drooled over word by word. Quoting God's inspired word is the best thing anyone can do providing they quote it truthfully, in context and with the true meaning given.

Answer 4

I think you are good. I really like the simple logic of #6. So simple yet profound.

#2 has an error. Though it deals with the phsical, it also can study the EFFECTS of things not seen and arrive at conclusions based on that data.

For me, I see all things around me as proof God has existed. I see humanity is still here dispite our current world political leaders as proof he exists now. Sure they are taking us downhill all the way; but, despite their being idiots, they haven't killed us all yet.

With the power it took for God to do what He has done, He would be able to continue to exist.

Answer 5

I personally believed humans have invented a God to explain the unknown and control the masses through fear and a reward system. That's what looking at religion has led me to believe so far. As for number four, if God is infinite, why can't the universe be? As for number five, of course everything seems so perfect because that's all we know. It still doesn't prove a creator. Why do we have stuff we pretty much don't need like a tail bone, wisdom teeth, toenails, males having nipples, and more?

Answer 6

I believe in God because :
1. I experienced His helps, protections and blessings in life.
2. I can see Him through all His creations, all the things He has provided for men to process to earn the living.
3. I know I can never live without Him for He is the source of my peace, joy and blessings.
4. I found Him when I was desperate and seriously searched for wayout and help.
and you will too ........

Jesus loves you and bless you

Answer 7

He has shown Himself to be real.

He has done this with millions of people,
over thousands of years.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and life!

Answer 8

Why I Don't Believe in the Existence of Gods:

=== 1: Simple Common Sense ===

Nothing in life has ever made me suspect that any gods really exist. I see no divine revelations, no miracles, no answered prayers, no preferential good fortune for people of any particular faith, no divine retribution for evildoers, no protection for the virtuous, the innocent or the weak. Life is exactly as we would expect it to be if there was no divine influence in the world - i.e. good and bad things come to good and bad people alike. Our lives are subject to chance, and the actions of other people, but that seems to be all.

=== 2: The Natural World ===

"Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the meddling of the gods." - Titus Lucretius Carus (c.99-55 BCE).

We can see no sign of any divine involvement in the natural world. Galaxies, stars and planets form because it is in the nature of matter to do so. Living organisms evolve and diverge by the unthinking, undirected process of evolution. There is no plan, no design, just the effects of probability and the properties of matter and forces. Many people will claim to the contrary, but as far as I can tell this just reflects an ignorance about how the natural world really is, rather than the perception of any higher truth. Certainly, their arguments always evaporate in the light of reason.

=== 3: Logical Arguments ===

1: Science gives us a way to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas - i.e. to show which explanation is the most consistent with observable reality. Science shows us that great complexity does not just arise spontaneously. It is inconceivable that even the simplest bacterium could exist without something being responsible for the complexity of its structure, its biochemistry and so on. It would take the lifetimes of a billion universes for it to appear spontaneously, by pure chance - in fact it is probably safe to say that it simply could never happen. This goes all the more for human beings. It's surely no coincidence that the only thing that we regard as truly intelligent - the human brain - is also the most complex thing in the known universe. Intelligence requires enormous complexity, far beyond anything that could conceivably exist without something being responsible for its existence. By the same reasoning, it's infinitely more unlikely still that an intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe and everything in it could just exist from nowhere, from nothing, without anything being responsible for its existence. Complexity, and especially the massive complexity required for intelligence, can therefore only arise from an antecedent, non-intelligent process - In the case of life on Earth, this means biological evolution, a fact which is attested to by a vast amount of real objective evidence and valid argument. So, to the extent that science allows us to reliably distinguish between plausible ideas and implausible ideas, it effectively rules out the possibility of an intelligent entity as the uncaused cause of everything that exists.

2: We've known for thousands of years that the 'tri-omni' gods of classical monotheistic religions cannot exist. If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity existed, then human evil could not exist. Since human evil unarguably does exist, the classical monotheistic deity cannot exist (objections about 'free will' notwithstanding).

3: Quantum Mechanics strongly suggests that nothingness is a state that cannot exist in reality, since that would be 100% deterministic, and QM says that existence is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Experimental evidence supports QM. If true, then this also precludes the existence of a creator, since it would be impossible to have a state of 'nothingness' from which a 'something' could be created.

4: David Hume proved that moral values are subjective - i.e. they describe a person's response to events, rather than objective properties of events themselves. Since morals are personal and subjective, there cannot be an external, objective source of moral values - Indeed, the idea is simply incomprehensible. Therefore, any god which is claimed to be the objective source of moral values cannot possibly exist. This includes the gods of most monotheistic religions, by their usual definitions.

5: Argument from design: If everything was designed by an intelligent creator then we would have no basis for identifying things that clearly *are* designed (things made by human beings) since we would have no non-designed (i.e. natural) things to compare them with. Therefore the natural world (everything that has not been designed by humans) must be non-designed, and therefore there can't be a designer god.

6: Anything that holds information or knowledge must be made of discrete parts, such as a brain (neurons and their connections) or a computer (memory locations). Anything that is made of parts cannot be self-existent - it must be made of something pre-existing. Therefore an intelligent entity cannot be self-existent and cannot be the source of everything that exists.

7: All attempts at arguing *for* the existence of any gods through logic and reason can be and have been comprehensively debunked.

=== 4: Religious Belief, Literature and Dogma ===

If any religion were true, we could reasonably expect it to produce some ideas and beliefs that people couldn't have thought up by themselves. Similarly for 'holy texts', and the rules and practices that derive from them. In fact though, religions only produce what we would expect humans to imagine or decide for themselves, on the basis of aspects of human nature such as superstition, moral judgments, xenophobia and so on. There is no sign of any divine influence here.

Religious literature, if divinely inspired, ought to be factually correct and free of contradictions, immoral ideas and absurdities. None of the holy texts fit the bill.

=== 5: Society and Culture ===

It's an observable fact that people overwhelmingly adopt the religion of their family and culture. If there was any external truth to religion, which human beings could perceive with some kind of supernatural sense, then we could reasonably expect there to be some consistency in religious belief. Instead, the distrubution of different religious beliefs is exactly as we would expect it to be if this were pure mythology, handed down through family and culture like any other kind of purely fictional story.

=== 6: Intellectual and Moral Progress ===

Religion has consistently been the enemy of intellectual progress, suppressing rational investigation of the world where it disagrees with and thus endangers religious belief (often by torture and death). There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, one single fact about the world that was brought to us by divine inspiration rather than rational investigation. How could this be, if religion were a source of truth? Religion has also consistently been the undisputed cause of much conflict, discrimination and persecution in the world, belying the existence of any kind of benevolent or moral guardian of the world.

=== 7: Rational Explanation for Religious Belief ===

As part of our evolutionary 'toolkit' of survival strategies, we have a highly developed awareness of other entities in our environment - We often notice human faces in carpet patterns, rabbit-shaped clouds and so on. There is more survival value in seeing what really *is* there, and also seeing some things that *aren't* really there, than in missing things that really are there and going hungry, or worse, ending up as someone else's lunch.

The consequence of this undeniably true aspect of human nature is that we have a natural tendency to imagine 'agents' (intelligent entities) behind natural phenomena and events in our own lives that aren't really there - i.e. gods and goddesses, demons, angels, spirits - a whole menagerie of supernatural characters. Society and culture binds up these characters with our wishes and fears, our desires for dominance and submission and shared identity, and we end up with religious belief and ritual and dogma, in thousands of different flavours throughout the world and throughout history. Religion is formalised superstition - It's just a common flaw in human nature, rather like the way we see optical illusions. We can account for the existence of religious belief perfectly well with this fact-based, rational explanation, rather than believing that there really is a supernatural realm of existence.

=== 8: Human Nature ===

Religious people will argue that humans are unique amongst all the animals in having an eternal, divine component that exists independently of the physical body - Usually referred to as a 'soul'. What exactly could a soul be? What properties could it have? What part of a person resides in the soul?

If it's postulated that consciousness, or awareness, or sense of self resides in the soul, it's difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the complete oblivion which accompanies general anaesthesia. How could a straightforward chemical, injected into the bloodstream, anaesthetise a soul so that it effectively ceases to exist during this time? If consciousness, in the form of a soul, were some kind of supernatural faculty, it would seem implausible that it could be completely disabled by a chemical.

How about some of the other things which we regard as essential parts of what makes a person what they are? How about love, compassion, reason, empathy, memory, conscious thought, character, 'spirituality' and so on? Well, there is really no plausible doubt that all these things are properties of the physical brain - We can alter all of these properties very simply with alcohol or other drugs, and observe how they change in people who have suffered significant brain damage. Previously placid people become uncontrollably violent, intelligent people become imbeciles, and so on. Stimulate the brain artificially, and the subject reports corresponding mental activity, e.g. 'religious experiences'. We can see from brain research that all these things - thought, emotion, sensation, character traits and so on - are correlated with activity in the brain, and some things can be identified with specific areas of the brain.

So, if all these faculties and characteristics of what we regard as the 'person' reside in the physical brain, as seems to be undeniably the case, and they all cease when the person dies, then what is left to be attributed to a 'soul'? As far as I can ascertain: Nothing. If there is no part of us that can continue after death, then there is no 'afterlife'... and if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is null and void.

============

There are other reasons too, but that'll do for now...