I'd be happier in hell or Tibet, whichever is farthest away from him.
2007-11-05 04:05:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Acorn 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
From the answers so far one can tell that most are not open to the idea that God may exist. It is really faith that is the key.
If you ask those who responded earlier can you scientifically prove that God does not exist. No one can.
More importantly, one has to deal with the issue of where will one go after death? This is the main source of difference for most religion.
For me it is the relationship with God that works rather than scientifically proved or not. Another way to look at it. Even it is scientific and common sense to say that studying hard and apply oneself will yield a better grade in school. Most people still get C. :)
2007-11-05 04:11:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by musicABC 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would then believe in him, but not worship him (since so many fundamentalists believe him to be a sexist, racist, angry god that hates and destroys). I prefer my peaceful god of sunshine, thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark S.: You obviously slept through every science class you've ever had. Your computer, the internet, your home and every possession in it is the result of science. The scientific method is completely objective, and scientific principles are not voted on. Try another strawman.
Lion of Judah: You sound like Troy Brooks. His arguments have been repeatedly shot down; don't follow his example. (Just for fun: what if there is a divine power, but it's not your God? What if it's Krishna? What then, eh?)
mahen: Atheists dispute that God exists. I'll assume you see polytheists as just believing in a different, multi-entity version of that god.
2007-11-05 04:38:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Johnny Sane 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wager an identical technique would paintings on getting the pope to admit that there is not any god. comparable for all of the evangelical fundie boneheads available. they say there's a god, I dislocate their shoulders and then they admit that there is not any god. So, scientifically speaking, it is the ability of the dislocated shoulders that's actuality. technological awareness wins returned. woman Morgana
2016-11-10 08:35:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd accept that the being existed, and then embark upon a great amount of searching within myself and within the "God stuff" to figure out how so many good things came from such a being.
2007-11-05 04:14:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by N 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I've often wondered, for those that believe in science and not God, Scientist say that their study shows that energy does leave the body when someone dies and they all agree on that. For people that don't believe there is a God, what do they think it is that is leaving the body after death. I call it my spirit going on another journey. I don't need anything that humans think they can prove. I know God exists because He has shown me that He does in many, many ways.
2007-11-05 04:58:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Go to war -- the Old Testament God is a cruel, bloodthirsty, genocidal, megalomaniacal tyrant who stands poised to cast billions of my fellow humans into eternal torment for daring to behave exactly as their creator had designed them to.
For the sake of my wife, my son, and the rest of humanity, I would give my last breath to overthrow this evil deity.
2007-11-05 04:14:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Reverend Soleil 5
·
5⤊
0⤋
If it were, as you say scientifically proven that god exists, then I would believe it.
However if that god was the Abrahamic god I would not worship it.
2007-11-05 04:07:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by ☼ɣɐʃʃɜƾ ɰɐɽɨɲɜɽɨƾ♀ 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
God does exist.
No one disputes that.
They may call it nature, philosophy, the self, god in heaven or in mecca OR in the Himalayas, or in Russia or within me.
The dispute is the description and attributes of god.
No Science can prove the existence of god.
Because it is against the Scriptures.
But god can show a sign such as destroy the whole solar system or cool the sun suddenly to -300degrees and so prove to us the presence;
that god is age-less, sex-less, colorless, race-less etc. omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient; NOT BIASED TOWARDS THIS FOOLISH HUMAN RACE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE (THAT IS SCIENCE FOR YOU)!
2007-11-05 04:15:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by mahen 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
Hmmmm...
Would our faith then count for anything at all, d'ya think?
I mean, if everyone "knew" that God exists, and that He is a God of love and compassion, then everyone would obviously bow down to Him...
Hmmmmm...
2007-11-05 04:18:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
All events have causes.
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
This uncaused cause is supernatural.
By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
This means that God is uncaused.
Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
2007-11-05 04:05:59
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋