I know there is a lot of disagreement on this. What can/can't God do? What is God? Why does he exist? Where is he? How does he work? Does he defy the laws of physics? Is God even possible?
All gods are imaginary. The God character of the Bible was simply the series of nuts who ruled the dominant Middle Eastern Empires during ancient times. The God character died when the last Babylonian Emperor bit the dust. He isn't coming back.
In reference to the Creator and Judge the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Anything but lie, still He is able to make something or someone who would and will lie (satan for example), He made the darkness as well as the Light but He dwells in the Light. Creator and Judge of all things the Almighty Power that is the Most High God that inhabits eternity. Why do you exist? You’ll have to ask Him, but life lives therefore He is the source of all living things that gives life and provides for the presence of life seeing He is the Living God. In the place of Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy, Kingdom of Heaven if you will, that dwells in those who are truly born again. Though it stands to reason that the world is supposed to be the place for Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy, but its mankind that has done all he can to prevent that because it would require the Presence of God. Through His Word in His Presence, in which He sees it to fulfillment according to His will, or pleasure. He set the laws of physics in place. hence the giver of the law is over the law, or Lord of the law, not under it. It is possible to know the Lord God through and in the name of Jesus Christ and be born of His Holy Spirit unto eternal life.
This is what I was looking for, but I don't understand how people actually believe it. Describing God makes it obvious to me that he probably does not exist.
This is the one true god: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus Dionysus (/daɪ.əˈnaɪsəs/; Greek: Διόνυσος, Dionysos) is the god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine, of ritual madness, fertility,[2][3] theatre and religious ecstasy in ancient Greek religion and myth. Wine played an important role in Greek culture, and the cult of Dionysus was the main religious focus for its unrestrained consumption.[4] Party time!
Well, that's because it's a description, not a definition. Others will describe God differently, and disproving that which DPMartin described does not disprove other god concepts. In ancient times, when religion wasn't as clearly distinguished from normal everyday facts, people would call for instance the sun a god. Clearly that "god" exists. Are we justified in saying that the sun isn't a god? Well, not until we've provided a good list of exactly what a god is, and even then, we'd have to be very aware of the fact that many won't agree with that list. This is the reason I stopped calling myself an atheist. I now withhold judgement of any god until I understand what someone means by the word. That being said, I would reject most god concepts. However when it comes things like religion, I like to be rigorous. Of course, most of the time, the distinction is irrelevant, and I settle for describing myself as non-religious.
If you are truly interested in this question then you should start reading Philosophy. In Philosophy you must rationally deal with the creation of the Universe without some preconceived religious notion. The only thing that makes sense is the existence of one or more God(s). Aquinas has 5 proofs of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Then once you get through Philosophy you can then choose your favorite Theist religion, or else you can remain Deist. Atheists are morons while Agnostics have simply made Science their religion -- which is also a fallacy. Deism and Theism are the only 2 logical choices thanks to Aquinas.
If God does not exist then how did you get here ?? How did anything get here ?? How did the Big Bang happen ?? What caused it to happen ?? Take a close look at Aquinas' 5 ways and that should at least clear up your skepticism from a Philosophical view.
That seems a bit simplistic to me, and it ties into the argument I've made. It seems to me that many of those who consider themselves atheists might be deists in your eyes, save for a confusion of terms. The first two of Aquinas' points are basically the same, using the existence of the universe as evidence of its creator. In essence, I think this argument is sound, with the possible exception of the line "This everyone understands to be God" (from the translation used by wikipedia). This is a linguistic point, and I wouldn't say it's easily resolved. Many who consider themselves non-religious would require more from something they would call God. If the process is purely natural and mundane, let's say an extension of relativity, then an atheist might say "that wasn't a god, it happened by itself", whereas a deist might say "we call it God no matter what its fundamental nature is". The difference is linguistic and remains unsolved as long as people disagree on what the word God means. I'll have to say I don't understand point 3 (contingency), it seems to me there is nothing stopping us from imagining a non-necessary universe. Quantum mechanics has unlocked the idea that there are things which can happen in more than one way without depending on other things. Probabilities which are not only uncertain because of our lack of knowledge, but because of an intrinsic feature of not having been decided from the start. It seems this point basically falls together with determinism. Point 4, argument from degree, I don't buy either. It seems to me there's nothing stopping me from imagining a feature such as "being like an orange situated in front of me, and being readily detectable by me". Clearly, an object which embodies that completely would be detectable by me, yet I see no orange, so it seems it does not follow that the perfect object must exist. Point 5, teleological, I believe is refuted by evolution and similar ideas.
Simple rule. If your answer is, 'gods exist' then you have made an argument from ignorance and, you are wrong.
A Deist believes in a God, albeit a very distant inaccessible one. A Theist believes God watches over him/her and helps them out. An Agnostic says there is no way to know, not even with Philosophy. An Atheist claims there is no God. This is a fallacious argument.
God is darkness, the fear of death, disease, and disaster, like the fear of the dark when you were a little kid. But now we're shining a light into the blackness: it started off as a candle so we couldn't see very far, and then it became a gas lamp, and then an electric bulb, and now we have flood lights, and there's nowhere for the darkness to hide, except amongst the feeble-minded.
Yeah, like nobody's thought of anything for the last 800 years, we never got the enlightenment nor invented science nor understood anything about the world but what a 13C monk knew. Very useful.
I don't see how this addresses the arguments I was proposing. In many cases, the difference between a deist and an atheist is whether to call that distant, inaccessible and perhaps relatively mundane god "God" or not. Also, it seems to me a theist believes in one or several gods, regardless of whether it watches over them and helps them out.
I just gave you the exact definitions. Has nothing to do with your arguments. Your arguments are yours. The definition are the definitions.
Atheism is a faith system based on lack of faith. They BELIEVE there is no God. Big difference from your statement about them.
