Could God be real despite dogmatic Christians and lack of scientific proof?

Question

teanangle: thanks for asking. I do believe, actually.

Answer 1

God Almighty is not only for real... nothing in the cosmic system could exist in absence of God Almighty! Why? It is for the simple reason that unless God Almighty explodes himself with a big bang... the cosmos would not form! In absence of the cosmos... there would not be any life! In the cosmic system the existence of God and life are correlated!

The existence of God does not require any proof! In the domain of God... it is absolute faith that rules the system. Similar as the smell of a flower cannot be seen... God Almighty always remains hidden from mankind. God Almighty is not the form of a human being... it is a cluster of celestial energy much beyond the comprehension of normal human beings.

Only those who gained enlightenment (kaivalya jnana) and finally salvation (moksha) can know God Almighty in its entirety. Knowing God is understanding the cosmic system. The moment dissolution of the earlier cosmos occurs... the entire cosmos reduces to the size of half a thumb! And what is this half a thumb?

At the time of dissolution of the cosmos... each and every individual soul atman in the cosmos reaches the end of cosmic life... the 8.4 millionth manifestation! Having reached the stage of salvation (moksha)... every single individual soul atman gains entry into the kingdom of God (aka Baikuntha in Hinduism).

The complete dross having removed... all souls atmans become absolutely pure and regain their original pristine form! The cluster of all purified souls atmans in the cosmos after the occurrence of the dissolution of the cosmos is what we know as God Almighty. This is just the size of half a thumb. This aspect has been made explicitly clear in the sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism.

This cluster of pure primordial cosmic energy unable to sustain itself along in its primary state... again explodes with a big bang giving birth to a new cosmos... a new cosmic journey! This confirms the saying that God is everywhere. How? The Mother of all explosions... the big bang causes all souls atmans in the cosmos to spread out at unimaginable speeds.

In the process all souls’ atmans get mired in impurities. To cleanse themselves of the impurities... the dross within every soul atman is required to work out its karma! And starts the cosmic life cycle of every individual soul atman! In every aspect of life, God Almighty is intrinsically connected. None can rule out the existence of God Almighty in the cosmos. More on God - http://www.godrealized.com/god.html

Answer 2

It is impossible to prove a universal negative by employing logic. Nevertheless, logic also suggests that some things are more probable than others.

A rational person would concede the possibility of the existence of anything that is not logically impossible. Some things are definitionally impossible...a round square, a married bachelor, etc. unless the definitions of the terms are adjusted for the discussion. An all-seeing God cannot, in many reasonable people's minds be reconciled logically with a perfectly good God. That's where the existence of evil paradox pops up.

Therefore, before anyone can reasonably be asked whether the possibility of the existence of God can be conceded, a working definition of "God" has to be agreed upon. Many discussions about God's existence degenerate into a shifting of definitions as the analysis gets closer to resolution.

You'll sometimes get people telling you that God is another name for the system of scientific laws that govern the universe, for example. If that's an agreed upon definition for the sake of the discussion, who can disgree that God esists?

On the other hand, there is a vast number of people out there to whom God is an imaginary friend that looks like Santa Claus and sides with them no matter how vile their behaviour and who despises people of different languages and skin tones. A lot of rational people would suggest that such a proposition needs some kind of supporting evidence before it is rationally accepted.

There are even some radicals, myself included, who take the position that believing in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence but for which there is a nearly infinite amount of counter-evidence, is just plain stupid.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary support. As far as that kind of god is concerned, even the slightest smattering of a single piece of evidence would go a long way.

Nevertheless, none of the foregoing PROVES that god (by any rationally consistent definition) doesn't esist.

Answer 3

By proof I'm going to assume you mean the theory of evolution, because there really isn't any other scientific evidence that appears to contradict God's existence. Evolution doesn't exactly contradict Christianity, hence the magnitude of Christians who also believe in theistic evolution. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's Catholicism's general view on how God created life on Earth. You'll find that in many areas outside of the US, more people believe in theistic evolution. It's simply a different interpretation of Genesis.

Answer 4

There is no scientific proof on how the universe was created, only theories. So, yes, God can be real. The problem is trying to comprehend God with our small minds.

Answer 5

Yes, if you look at science, they even state themselves that there is more study to be done on everything from the brain to the universe and so on. In a sense, science doesn't know everything about anything. It's a young subject. I believe in God and Jesus. Think of it this way: if scientists don't understand our brain, how do you expect them to understand God?

Answer 6

Sure, God could be real. I don't believe in Him, but you can't be sure of anything, can you?

I think if scientific ideas in general are correct, then probably God doesn't exist (or goddesses or other omnipotent supernatural great beings), but, again, we could be wrong.

I don't exactly deny the existence of God; maybe he exists, but I just don't believe in that.

Answer 7

God is real. it is the most logical conclusion. say, how was the world created? since the law of conservation of mass states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, say the universe was formed from the big bang theory, from where did the clashing bodies of the big bang come from? and the question goes on without an end. thus the most logical solution is that god exists.

Answer 8

There are religious fundamentalists and there are secular fundamentalists, but it's easier for educated people to fall into the latter credulity, since it's supported by much conventional wisdom.
___Logical objects are not the same as worldly objects, in that the former are absolutely distinct, and the latter are physically integrated (by gravity and other attractive forces among other things), and hence ambiguous with respect to their boundaries and number. Hume made that mistake of treating worldly objects as absolutely distinct, and his skeptical conclusions throw the causal statements of science into the category of mental associations.
___The objects that science studies are phenomenologically singled-out objects from their integrated contexts. They are not illusions. They are real, but they aren't unambiguously distinct and hence, they aren't absolute. But they are the kinds of objects of perception and thought that human intelligence can handle, the kind of objects that are functionally distinct, and which can be strung together in a linguistic chain. The world doesn't exist in a distinct linear format. The world's objects partake of distinctness, but they also partake of some integration and connection. Newton's accomplishment was to devise a means of stipulating gravity as a separate entity, an "invisible force", in order to render it mathematizable, even though gravity is a property of matter. "Properties" do not exist independently, but inhere in objects, and Newton called gravity a property of matter, but he found a way to make the math work anyway.
___Science is a marvelous tool, a miracle of human accomplishment. But it isn't absolute knowledge, and its domain is not of the highest level of generality.
___Questions of God's existence are beyond the reach of science, unless fundamentalists make concrete claims about God that fall within the domain of science. In those cases, science has some bearing on the probability of such claims. Six-day creationism has a pretty extreme degree of unlikelihood. The notion that the universe has some aspect of something like intelligence is much less unlikely, and is beyond the reach of scientific method. Then again, some supporters of intelligent design make claims that do verge on science's domain, and set themselves up for criticism.
___In Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", there is an interesting bit of history concerning the development of the study of electricity. In the 18th century there was controversy about whether the study of current electricity or that of static electricity was the "true" study of electricity; at the time, there wasn't enough understanding of electricity to include both into one discipline and to reconcile them. The current-researchers won, and static electricity was relegated to a status of something like alchemy until Tesla. What is interesting in this example of how conventional wisdom has to exclude what it can't comprehend, while the fact of the exclusion doesn't necessarily mean that its content will turn out to be false. One might well ask today whether the confidence of the 18th-century static electricity excluders felt like the confidence of intelligent-design excluders today.
___Philosophers of science and many scientists recognize that science is an ever-unfinished enterprise, and we live in an age which, like any other, has incomplete scientific knowledge. And the present state of science has a lot of unknowns.
___It's fairly easy to dismiss fundamentalists of the religious sort, but secular fundamentalists have the support of conventional academic wisdom and of peer pressure among educated people who don't think critically about what they learned in school.

Answer 9

probably. We are not 100% sure whats going to happen tommorow so just like that we're not sure if god exists. But then again if he created us who created him? and then who created his creator? nothing just pops out of nowhere or does it? another questions to get you'll thinking where does the universe end? it has to have an ending doesn't it?

Answer 10

Sure, and the flying spaghetti monster could be real too.
But logically why would you believe in him just because you can't disprove him?
Anythings possible but plenty of things are very improbable.