Atheists, Agnostics and Christans, give me your opinions on God, and if there is one or not, and why?

Answer 1

there is no way to Prove it either way, except to die. but that defeats the purpose of trying to know ahead of time doesn't it?

Answer 2

I find it funny that many of the most scientific minds in the history of the world say that there is a God, or some kind of all knowing being. Einstein himself admitted it.

Now that being said, I do think there is a God, and I do practice roman Catholicism, not because I believe 100% in what the 'church' says, and not because I agree 100% with what the bible, which was written by man remind you, says.

I look at it like this, is there a God? I don't know
is there an after life? well no one's come back and told me so I don't know
Is there a heaven and hell? I again don't know, but I do know this, if there is a 1 in a million chance that I've picked the right faith that keeps me outta hell it's worth it.

Serioully look at it like this: If i'm wrong and we die and nothing happens then you atheists are right, then both of us lose, but if I'm right, then I win, and you lose. Since when is taking a losing bet a smart thing?

Answer 3

I consider myself agnostic. There are so many things about humans, about earth, about everything here, that I really don't believe it can all be explained by science. I believe that there must have been some other force to contribute to our world, but at the same time, I don't exactly know for sure. And if there is a "God" or "higher being" I don't think that worshiping him is right, seeing as how the world is so extremely dysfunctional today, if there was an allmightly "God" and he "loved" us, weather we have free will or not, he could change things, and help all those innocent lives that tend to get eaten in the world today.

Answer 4

There most certainly is proof and evidence of the existence of G-d. The proof is greater than what is required for any other history which we accept and which certainly has more to the story than meets the eye.

Also, I could not agree with manoftaste3000. I am Jewish and have studied a little bit.

Back to my point on evidence.

Point 1. The classification of animals in the Torah, has remained unchallenged in over 3,000 years. For example. the bible says animals which are fit (kosher) to eat for meat have split hooves and chew their cud. Then the bible details those animals that chew their cud but dont have split hooves. It goes on the say that the pig, alone, has split hooves but does not chew it's cud.

There has been NO NEW mammal found that does not fit into these classifications written over 3000 years ago.

Further, the Torah classifies fish as having fins and scales, but some fish have fins but no scales. The Torah does not mention anything about a fish with scales but no fins. Why? There are none. There are no fish with scales and no fins. ALL fish with scales HAVE fins according to the Torah. They never found one since the writing of the Torah 3319 years ago.

Did Moses go around the world to check every animal and fish in the ocean in order to be accurate? Can any man go around every continent and make a finding UNCHALLENGED for over 3000 years? How did Moses know this and how come NO ONE has found a fish with scales and no fins?

This is just one example of many as to why the information in the Torah could not have been provided by a mortal being.

Point 2. In history, finding various sources give credibility to ones view of history. How many times does an ADVERSARY agree with their adversary? Never! We accept our American history as fact even though our adversaries say othewise.

In the bible there is an account of the Exodus in Egypt. People may say its fictional. BUT...the Egyptian, Ipuwer Papyrus, written by an Egyptian, writes of the misery Egypt is experiencing that matches those experiences of the Ten Plauges in the bible. The papyrus was dated FROM THAT TIME in history. Also, within several hundred years of that event, the Moabite (outside of Egypt near what is Israel today) written, Mesha Stele, talks about the Hebrews now being in the land of Canaan, on the other side of the Red Sea and they are prospering. Just a note, no slaves ever just got up and walked out from a powerful nation, crossed a sea on foot, and ended up in a foreign nation prospering on their own.

These two artifacts, the Ipuwer Papyrus and the Mesha Stele, written by adversarial nations of the Hebrews VALIDATE the Hebrew biblical accounts right down to the date.

When an adversary corroborates their adversaries story, that kind of evidence is GREATER than what we accept as history in any are we study or teachers teach.

This is just the tip of the ice berg. There are reasons religious people are religious and among the most intelligent among us. One must study.

Answer 5

I think the big bang theory, without intelligent design, has about as much validity as someone thinking that they could put all the component parts of a watch into a bag, then shake it up and expect a watch to come out.

There must be a God perhaps not some old bearded man in the sky but some intelligence that created everything and we refer to as God.

Answer 6

Yes and no. In my opinion God exists (in some fashion) until he is proven not to exist (which is logically impossible). Now is he a thinking rational being, who meddles in our affairs, sends us to heaven or hell, and can be even partially defined by an imperfect human mind? No, the idea is laughable. There are two classes of reality in the universe. That which is true, and that which is not true. Man's greatest flaw is in thinking he can tell the difference between the two.

Answer 7

The lady who posted her disbelief is illogical and here is why.

We exist. We had to come from something. Something cannot come from nothing. If someone says life began on it's own, from nothing, that is illogical because you have to realize that nothing cannot produce something. How do you get something out of nothing? There had to be something.

Following this thought, we all know of cause and effect. And many explain life as a series of cause anad effect. If someone says there had to be a first cause, then we can ask, "What caused that first cause that led to the first effect?" Again, logically, the first cause could not come from nothing. Nothing, is just that; nothing.

The ONLY logical explanation is that since we exist, and we could not have started from nothing, because nothing is just that; nothing, we have to conclude that the spark of life began from something eternal/infinite.

Since all things in creation are finite, then it is logical to conclude what created all this is outside of creation itself. It is not logical to assume something that does not exist had a hand in creating itself.

Logically, this is where we start to identify what we call G-d. And this is why belief in G-d is logical and disbelief is not.

Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians will all have varying views that keep evolving, even among their own. I am sure you will get many interesting thoughts for that reasons.

You ask one of the most weighty questions of all time.

If you want to really know about G-d and are not just curious about what other people think, their hunches, or anything else, you should learn about where G-d involves Himself in telling the world-at-large about His nature, versus the ideas of Him from people who had no direct interaction and in all historical honesty, get their information, although not understood in its proper or original context, from Judaism.

G-d sorta begins to go public with his interaction with Abraham. By learning from reliable sources of the most devout followers (who meticulously preserve the proper understanding through each generation) of Abraham's offspring through Isaac, in Judaism, you will learn from the original sources of the original people who had original contact thereby giving the concept itself, of G-d, to the world. How the world beliefs have altered these ideas, is a whole other story that is still being changed today, unfortunately.

Nice question.

Answer 8

i think that you need to prove it either way... show me there's a god and i'll agree, show me there is no trace of him i'll agree, there are too many holes in religions for me to have faith in them and saying that because you can't see something means it can't exist is just as much of an idoditic statement as to say that **** tastes like marshmallow, would you trust some one who has tasted **** at will?

holes, for example, where did god come from, something had to come from nothing at one point, why not god or his/her creator... why wasn't moses considered gods son, you don't know if he has parents or not let alone anything else... he just happened to be told of the plagues and what to do

Answer 9

no god.
There is no reason to posit a god - everything can be explained without god; god is superfluous

The only god that "exists" is the one people have imagined, created, and decided to lean on

Answer 10

God doesn't exist. But one can argue that if the 99% of the population believes God exist then how can you prove them wrong.

Answer 11

No empirical evidence of a god. Too many contradictions in religious texts to be one.