If God exists...

[eccentric]

I do agree with you very much, that our origin has to be found. Whether it is God or chance, we will never know. Human intellect has a strange barrier, it is called a knee jerk reaction. This reaction will not allow you to venture beyond one's scope of the definition of truth. Unless, of course, someone is courageous.

For me what is strange is that someone could be believing in God, but then if their actions are not in concurrence with someone else's understanding of truth, let us use Islam as as example, that person would face abuse. On this very website, it is Muslims (who believe in God) who are abusing each other. The Atheists are not abusing them. How do you reconcile this?

Atheists may not abuse each, but they abuse religious people.

[Dust]

Atheists may not abuse each, but they abuse religious people.

Why should it matter when religious people are already abusing each other. Not only do they abuse each other but they also abuse Atheists and the members of other religions. Funny, eh?

[Dust]

I dont think there is a logical way to prove God.

Its your choice, if you want to believe in God or not.

Nobody can prove the existence of God to you with any specific reason.

This is ridiculous. Of course, you can prove His existence, if He exists. I firmly believe in this notion. Otherwise, I don't want to be held accountable for not having "faith."

[Dust]

That is where I have found a flaw in the logic of Atheists. If He does not exist one should be able to prove it. By proving it one must counter the arguments for the existence of God.

I find myself in this dilemma, but what turns me off is that religious people are not sane. They are at each other's throat. I personally have found reading the scripture of each religion worthwhile. That is why I cannot disagree with Islam being totally false. Even if God did not exist, the Quran is a masterpiece. If God does not exist, I find that Muhammad to be a genius. History has recorded it that he brought an impossible revolution in Arabia.

Do you follow my train of thought or should I be more articulate? It has taken me a lot of deep thinking to understand God, of course, by giving benefit of the doubt as a first step.

[Roshina]

That is where I have found a flaw in the logic of Atheists. If He does not exist one should be able to prove it. By proving it one must counter the arguments for the existence of God.

I completely disagree with the idea that God's lack of existence must be proven. Why? Because let's say I tell you that I don't have a pen. How would I prove it to you? Would you go through every single spot on my desk to see if I have a pen or not? Or if I tell you I don't have a daughter, how will I prove it to you? How can one be expected to provide evidence that X is NOT the case?

Similarly, if God exists, it must be proven, as you agree yourself, but if God does NOT exist, it doesn't have to be proven and neither can it be proven. If He doesn't exist, He doesn't exist; if He exists, we have to prove it, by whatever means possible. If impossible, as some of us believe, then simply admit that it's not possible to prove God's existence and that it's just a matter of faith and nothing more, nothing deeper (this is not to imply that belief in faith alone is nothing deep).

In other words, proving that He exists is the ONLY possible and plausible way to prove that He does NOT not-exist -- if this makes any sense at all.

[Dust]

@Q,

You have gotten me thinking. I agree with off the bat. However, if you notice that I had already given evidence for my stance.

If He does not exist one should be able to prove it. By proving it one must counter the arguments for the existence of God.

But I am going to ponder on this matter further. I believe that intellectualism can only bring us so far. The existence of God has puzzled man for ages. Intellects have had a hard time figuring this out and they've had to fall back on this thought that you can't prove a negative. The fallacy in the logic is that God has to be visible for Him to exist. However, the evidence presented in favour of God seems to be that He is not dense. Hence, light does not reflect off Him. However, for some reason laymen do not seem to have a problem with this concept of God. One thing that baffles me every time I read about the founder of different religions, is that they were humble, honest and not power hungry. It would go against logic why they would attribute the depth of their thought to God, if he did not exist.

Moreover, when researching I have found a resounding pattern: we, as scholars, seem to always go back to the laymen or the state of nature within nature or to nature itself to find evidence to support our theoretical thought. Why do we do this? Just food for thought. The problem, however, is that intellects have a way of making the waters murky. The laymen seem to be very clear about their behaviour. And that is what we need when researching. 100% honest and truthfulness is needed otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of one's theory.

But off the bat, I can present one flaw with your analogy. The person in question would have the right answer. So, someone would have the right answer. Hoping that 100% truthfulness is involved, we would be able to get to the crux of the matter. Therefore, using my own formula, one would be able to find the answer by question the person in question.

I will think more deeply about what you have presented and post something. I am doing a lot of research for my studies, so bear with me if I am not as quick.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Dust, think about eternity, it will make things a lot easier. Don't calculate the existence of God as coming into being right before the Big Bang.

[Dust]

Give me an example of what you are talking about. Substantiate your claim.