If God doesn't exist...

[ChrisL]

I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians." They are NOT good people. They prove it all the time! Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.

I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed and I'll go even further. I've found pieces of the new testament important in my morality. Then again I've also taken life lessons from fairy tales, my parents, friends and family, not to mention my own common sense. I will rarely call ppl names and altough my ego will compell me to try to convince other ppl of me being right. I think I show respect to ppl who do believe in other things then I do. I think that the most important lesson found in the NT is the story of the good samaritan, wich teaches us, and I'm simplifying here, that being a good person has little to do with being a religious person.

I'm probably not as nice as you are about things. Lol.

 

[forkup]

I heard Darwin was only the first who published this theory - others had the same ideas. Whoelse did?
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that's the person your refering to btw

 

[james bond]

Believe me, not many people would like to believe in a "heaven" more than me. But . . . no. Just not plausible. Of course, like anyone, sometimes I do wonder, but then my logic takes over.

I didn't start thinking that way, but considered the afterlife, i.e. is there an afterlife?

 

[james bond]

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

 

[Militants]

I will the Lutheran God to exist.

 

[forkup]

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

 

[zaangalewa]

Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?

My friend

¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...

unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.

Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think. I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says what the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.

It's for me personaly by the way completly unimportant what you think about the bible. Why should anyone ask you anything in context with the bible?

Sorry for caling you friend,

apperently it was offensive, anyways moving on. I kinda have a hard time understanding your posts.

My words are only shadows.The real world is somewhere else.

Just to give context to my post. I don't believe you are fictional and of course you give your opinion, after all this is a discussion board. You dismissed chrisl posts as something irrelevant because she used a quote of a fictional character. Nobody here thinks House is real but the quote does make sense.

The source of this words is the unknown author not the well known actor.

Me and Chris and all atheist believe

You know a lot of people

that the only way you can be religious

?

is that, at least as far as religion is concerned you have to stop thinking rationally.

I never said I'm not an idiot. So I don't expect from anyone else not to be an idiot too - from time to time.

Not saying you are not rational but religion by definition,

¿by definition? Who cares about definitions? Definitions are able to be wrong too and the definitions you are accpting or your selfdefinitions or interpretations and selfinterpretations are your own problem.

requires believing without having proof of your assumption ,namely that there is a god and more specifically that all he does is literally described in the bible. Hope this is helpfull.

A Christian says "I believe in god" - this is alway true as long as he believes in god - otherwise someone says for example: "I lost my belief in god". Some days ago for example I heard from someone who lost not only family members but also his trust in god. He suffers a lot - I'm very sad about. I hope his friends are able to help him.

You say "god is not real " - what you don't know. Your atheism is your way - that's all. I don't know, why god sent you this way - there will be reasons. But in my eyes you are not helpfull.

 

[james bond]

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

 

[zaangalewa]

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

The problem is more complex because god created existance. Was he existing when existance did not exist? A stupid question, I know, because we are not really able to ask this question and to find an answer. And god could indeed exist and not exist the same time - he's allmighty, more mighty than only endless mighty - but we would not be able to believe so, without killing our logic. As far as I can see we have to do the decision to believe in god or not to believe in god. But on the other side I personally never made this decision. God was always with me as long as I remember. But that is maybe an exception, because I had problems when I was a very little child. I was in an uncomparable way isolated and hospitalized for 1.5 years within the first six years of my life. I don't know what I did, felt or thought in those days. Nevertheless god is maybe since ever existing in every heart and we need only the key to open our hearts if we like to find him everywhere in the worlds.

 

[forkup]

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

 

[zaangalewa]

I heard Darwin was only the first who published this theory - others had the same ideas. Whoelse did?
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that's the person your refering to btw

Thank you. A very impressing person. Is it possible to say "Darwin was a racist - Wallace not"?

 

[zaangalewa]

Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?

My friend

¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...

unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.

Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own power of imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think and I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says, what the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.

Typical phony "Christian." Lol. What would Jesus say?

He says to me a "I am with you" in a form of warming feeling inside what looks like a little red lake of warmth and feels also somehow like the idea of a tender embrace all around me. I don't know wether Mr. Hugh Laurie believes in god or not. Indeed this is completly unimportant for me. I 'hate' only this form of mindmanipulating propaganda.

Take Bruno Ganz as another example. A wonderful actor. He played not only the person "Hitler" very very good - and has absolutely nothing to do with any thought of this dictator. Nothing is like Hitler in the person of Mr. Bruno Ganz. Or take the other extreme: Take Tom Cruise as another example. He played Graf Stauffenberg in the film "Operation Walküre" - and he has less than nothing to do with this freedom fighter but is in the opposit a mindmanipulating leader of a criminal organisation with the name "Scientology".

 

[Mudda]

Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.

No drinking or smoking the funny sticks. Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God, If no God, then no atheists. (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.) Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Your premise is wrong. You give only two choices when it could very well be that there is no God but yes there are atheists. You don't give a good reason why the third way is not viable.
And what's your argument for a god even existing?

 

[sealybobo]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

It just means we don't know yet.

And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.

If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?

Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.

So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?

You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.

The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade

 

[sealybobo]

We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops.
Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
We need to let go more.
Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.

Whatever created our universe should be loved respected appreciated and feared. And life should be too. If I shoot and kill a deer I respect appreciate love and fear the deer.

I would never hurt anything needlessly.

 

[Mudda]

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

God says there is no end of the story. See. Atheists are usually wrong.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

 

[sealybobo]

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?

The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists. We know the latter is not the case in our universe. So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong. Only one can be right. Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.

It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it? I don't know. If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists. He would be understood. In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God). That's just the way it is.

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did. Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins. He performed miracles while he was here. He was supposedly perfect and a role model. They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes. I think, therefore I am. In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix. If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence. However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. He does not make mistakes. He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away. He does what he is supposed to do. We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty. We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
3. So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
4. Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives. I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them. There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
1. Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence? If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
2. Sadly, I am still not perfect.
3. My parents, are not perfect either. They have their faults, too. They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
4. Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection. While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1. After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. Get angry. I do not do what I am supposed to do. On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.

When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.

And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.

This is how primitive we still are.

This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.

 

[there4eyeM]

Would not one need to know what perfect is in order to know that one weren't?

 

[zaangalewa]

...If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle? ...

Yes. ... And not only this situation. Life is always a miracle.

 

[there4eyeM]

If everything is a miracle, ....