So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with there is also no physical evidence that a god "does not" exist which is a fair statement however, I am almost wanting to lean towards the idea that since there is no physical evidence of the existence of god that is almost evidence in itself that a god does not exist. I mean we live in an age of logic, reason and more importantly "Reality". One would think that if those who are so persistent that god exist they would be encouraged to provide any type of physical evidence other a book to attract people to the religion itself.. What do you guys think? Yes I know.. an odd discussion.
P.s. Not trying to ridicule anyones beliefs. Just curious to know your thoughts.
The thing is, there is no unquestionable physical evidence of a god. If evidence was present, there would not be a need to the whole faith-belief aspect of Christianity (is that the religion you're addressing?).
I would have to argue that there's plenty of physical evidence, otherwise, one would have to believe that God has no contact with the physical world whatsoever. Saying there's no physical evidence that God exists is like saying there's no physical evidence that someone typed this message. God created the universe, what more physical evidence do you need. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but ultimately if God was visible to everyone, there would still be atheism.
As far as an age of logic, we are far removed from logic and reason, which has become our new reality.
Statements like that only show one is completely out of touch with reality.
Just because we don't YET know how the universe was created, or where it came from, does not mean God created it. That is why I said ''unquestionable physical evidence'', as some people will take that as proof, others will not.
The same thing could be applied to times before modern time. People used to believe lightning was God's fury. Your argument could have been used to back this up - who created the lightning if not God? Now we know better, right?
In my opinion believing in something supernatural just because of one's lack of knowledge is illogical.
The most common response you can expect from many will be the same that I have received in many conversations- the absence of proof is not the absence of evidence. And then they point to the Universe's existence, the Earth's existence and everything in existence, as "proof" - "evidence" of said "G/god".
What I don't like is when most of these same individual hold the belief that any "G/god" would have any inclination or desire or interaction with said "creation" once it was created, since "free will" exists.
The other aspect that makes no sense is the "special" tag applied to the human species by which a "G/god" would create all of existence including the human species, for praise of self? It seems that the "G/god" would have the size of an ego larger than the Universe itself and yet this same individual(entity) wouldn't have the ability to see beyond itself.
Just my thoughts on your OP.
Perhaps the human brain is the best argument in favour of there being a god. On our own planet, it is the only one which asks for reasons. The fact that it is hardwired to provide God as the answer might suggest that it was created for this purpose. However, it could equally be argued that there is some evolutionary reason for the belief in God. As God does not make Himself known in the physical universe, then perhaps the human mind is the medium He uses to broadcast Himself, rather like a radio. Unfortunately, it seems we are all tuned to different stations, as we all have our own ideas of God.
Hardwired? Are you sure you were'nt taught about god and believed what you were taught? What if you were never taught about god? What ifou were like me and questionned everything you were taught and as a result did not place belief in such claims?
It could also be argued that almost every animal on the planet has inquisition as one of its psychological traits, that inquisition has many, many evolutionary benefits, such as learning where to find food, how to get foodand so on. Of course, inquisition requires use of the brain, and the more inquisition you use, the more you use your brain and the larger it gets.
It stands to reason that there is always going to be ONE lifeform on the planet that has the largest brain and that just so happens to be us, if it wasn't then some other species would be talking about this
I dont think our bain is hardwired to believe in god. If that were true, then people who had never been taught about such a being would believe in a god too and that can easily be tested to be false.
Inquisition is a result of wanting to have an answer or understanding and god is quite obviously an answer that conveniently "fills the gaps".
If there is something you cannot understand, you can fill the gap with "god did it". Some people seem to be more than happy to do that and then never visit the question again.
I think belief in god is not hardwired into the brain, but a result of inquisition and a want for knowledge which are "hardwired" into the brain due to evolution.
Hmmm... I think you're missing the whole point of, "Faith." Purely as an example, Google, "Doubting Thomas."
Don't like to get involved in religious debates but you are definitely not getting the prime consideration of most religious beliefs...
I believe that "faith" is simply a convenient way of making people not question you because you know you dont have the answers.
For example, I want to control the masses but I know I cannot police them all. I could create a religion and tell everyone that someone is always watching so they must do the right thing and follow the laws (that I made up) of that god (that I also made up).
In order to protect my flimsy story, I would insist that faith is required and then bang on about how faith is a virtue (when it really isn't).
Job done, a country full of people following your laws in the belief that they wil be punished for their crimes (not following the laws that I made up) even if no person saw them.
If that is how the first religion came about then that guy (or girl) is a genius.
For me it needs to be physical evidence or pretty much nothing. Don't get me wrong.. I have nothing against those with Faith and respect whatever people wish to believe but "Faith" in itself doesn't really answer anything for me personally.. Thanks though.
I don't see why people think there has to be physical evidence of something to believe in it. All religions which adhere to the belief in a God, believe in his existence as being separate from and of a different realm than physical. Therefore, to ask someone of religion to provide physical evidence of God is to impose a quality on that God which the religion itself denies. It doens't make sense to me. I'm not arguing for or against either way. I just find it odd.
*physical evidence of God to believe in God.
How can you not argue against it!?
The only evidence of this God who is beyond our physical existence is in the man-made physical book that was written about him.
Creationists are taking their knowledge from a physical source: book.
If not for that physical stimulus: book - then people will never believe in such a God.
That is to say book = God
It sickens me when religious people back up their religion by the book that is being questioned in the argument.
"The Bible isn't real"
"OH yeah!? Well in the BIble it says ..."
One day when I was growing up in harlem, I bummed a cigarrette off an old homeless guy. I dunno why but I now believe in god.
Religion and belief in God is based on faith. Having said that, I think that God existing is not the main reason why people are religious. I guess we will never have proof (while living) of his existence. If he doesn't exist, the believer should still be satisfied with the way they have lived. The reason people follow religion (well, the genuine ones), is not because they are afraid of hell, but because they need to follow a set of concrete ethics and morals that allow them to live a fulfilling life.
Even if God is a "foma" (harmless untruth), what the idea of God produces for the believer is far more important than the truth behind it.
I think that you may be challenged in this forum by believers that feel they need to defend their beliefs, but it is unnecessary. If believing in God works for them, then it is totally acceptable to have those beliefs just as it is to not have those beliefs.
God exists for the person that wants God to exist. Not everyone thinks the way everyone else does.
Just thought I'd throw in a redundant statement, for the simplicity of it.
I agree. And I like how you phrased that.
It really doesn't have to be complicated. I think people have a tendancy to over complicate simple ideas. One should read religious articles with a simple mind and resist being analitical or taking it too seriously. Life is too short to argue about who is wrong and who is right.
Except people are naturally inclined to think in a particular way [rationally], and are taught out of it as they grow up.
That theory is what mental illnesses are based upon.
Believing in religion is often likened to mental illness.
Sorry I have been offline for awhile after posting this. Looks like I missed some good discussions. I just feel that the belief in god is something that is learned, faith is broad. Besides "Faith" having meaning to believing in god two other parts of the definition also stand out."belief that is not based on proof" and "confidence or trust in a person or thing". Yes I stole that from dictionary.com. The difference between having faith in someone, a person is that they are physical, god is not. We all have the ability to have faith in some form or another.
Although there is no hard "Proof" of how the world began there is more "Evidence" of how the world came to be than any evidence that it was created by any sort of deity(I don't think there is any)and there are constant studies being done with findings that provide answers and conclusions to things once only thought to be by the power of god. The secular argument for me is stronger than that of believers who's only answer is through faith for me that is just not enough and answers nothing.
Again, I respect others beliefs and only wish to spark discussion no matter how odd the topic may be. My comments are only my opinions and nothing more.
Thanks everyone and have a great new year!
Here here, even if we find out how the Universe was made without one, people will still say "yeah but, before that, a deity happened" and offer no reason or explanation for saying so, based on the faith that was ingrained as children.
That said, organised religions are time and time again proven wrong by science and that probably accounts for all of the losses in religious numbers in the developed world.
Forums like this are good because they excel the rapid decline of religion.
Maybe then we can get on with wearing condoms, stopping HIV and aborting rape-borne babies.
95% of humanity practices some form of religion or faith.
The remaining 5% argue against their belief. Thus demonstrating as much awareness of "religion" as those they oppose.
This all adds up to a very likely possibility of (A) God-being as inevitable.
(I just happen to know that He "IS"!! )
95%? Source me please
This doesn't say so : http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I was being generous.
It's actually closer to 98%
here > http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
How do you conclude that?
Oh, I see. I did count that.
So, let's modify my figures. Make that around 84% for, and 16% against.
That means 100% of humanity is religion/god aware.
Any problem with that?
Irreligious is the antonym of religious
I said "god/religion aware", not that they were religious.
Jesus doesn't lie
"95% of humanity practices some form of religion or faith." aka-dj
Agnostics practice a form of religion or faith do they? And what is that ?
And also, Ad Populum.
Since you're keen on fallacies, try this one:
I just happen to know that YOU'RE an idiot (ad hominem)
You're not alone!
Do you wish to apologise, or do you wish to be reported for personal attacks? (and be banned from the forum)
Waiting for the apology;
But Mr Aka-Dj, what would Jesus do?
My question is, "what will you do"?
I can forgive you. AND I can report you.
Let's be nice on the forum, shall we?
"Is this a summary of your life values?"- snide and unprovoked remark - Aka-Dj, 2011, Dec 29
Let's be nice on the forum, shall we?
Physical evidence of the spiritual? Wouldn't that negate the whole thing? I'm at a loss.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar2 weeks ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by SirDent2 years ago
Truth? or not?
by topgunjager7 years ago
Who can post the best argument about the existence or the non-existence of God and can support their answers using real logic? Don't use faith based logic when proving the existence of God.
by Alan8 months ago
Is it possible for you to "believe in" god, even though you know that god does not actually exist, except in your mind?
by Claire Evans21 months ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is...
by Tim Mitchell3 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.