Do You Believe In God?

No, I'm an atheist. But I do believe in something, in karma. Karma puts everything and everyone in place with time and that is something that makes me see everything differently.

I feel stupid just saying this just because I find religion too controversial for me but I'm agnostic. I was raised chatholic and I did believe in god when I was younger but only because I was told to. Once I was old enough I was like nah

No, I believe we are at a constant vibrational level, that it's our purpose to ether rise or fall to the next dimension.

I am a Jew by nationality, in all Jews believe in God, well, as if I am not an exception, there were many different situations in life when the ?special-purpose power helped and then you simply understand that someone helped

Yes, I do. But I don't believe in a man up in heaven who will punish or reward based on how I live my life. I believe God is within each and every one of us. We're all expressions of God.

Only retard would belive in god. Seriously. Maybe alliens, but god...

I don't believe in God per say, more of a higher power that I don't put a name to. I pray to whomever is listening.

If God is there he would be too busy managing 7 billion people on this planet and hundreds and billions of stars and galaxies and would care less whether we believe in him or not.

Religion forced us look at god with same human feeling and sufferings and I believe god is much bigger that.

If you know how to access it, The divinity and power of god exists in every atom of animate and inanimate things.

yes. i think there are more good reasons to affirm theism rather thanaffirm atheism. if you are interested in some discussions on this topic, listen to some debates between william lane craig (theist) and the many atheists he's debated. check out this debate he had with hitchens (an atheist i personally enjoyed listening to when he was still alive). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

---

My friend and iwrote up some short explanations for some of the 'classical' arguments for the existence of God (classical meaning they're intended to show through deduction that God must exist). I've included 4 and color coded them so they're easier to navigate through. note that this is just one school of thought in arguing for God's existence. there's much more discussion to be had on this matter.

#1 The Cosmological argument:

argues that every effect has a cause, including the universe aka "cosmos". A simple version in deductive form would look like this:

#1 Everything that begins to exists has a cause
#2 This universe began to exist
#3 Therefore, this universe has a cause

This is not the only form of the argument, but it is probably the simplest. Notice that if premise #1 and premise #2 are true then #3 is true whether you like it or not. This is helpful because almost all of scientific scholarship affirms the truth of premise #2, consider the "Big Bang" for example. So if someone wants to deny the conclusion they would have to deny premise #1 - "everything that begins to exist has a cause" - which they cannot do without looking foolish -see quote by William Lane Craig below.

Strengths:
The argument is very simple and easy to follow.
The two premises are largely supported by mainstream science.
Weaknesses:
It does not argue for the existence of the Christian God, only for the existence of a first cause. The argument is therefore not unique to Christianity. It's interesting to note that the 3-step version I gave above was originally developed by Muslims.

If this argument works, then you have established a number of things. For one there is an ultimate first cause of the universe. Second, this cause created space and time and so must be space-less and timeless. Third, the first cause would be very, very, very powerful. Fouth, the first cause would be personal because space-less and timeless things do not decide to create stuff. For example the number 7 cannot "decided" to do anything. So if successful this argument leaves you with a space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, personal being.

#2The Teleological Argument:

The name comes from the Greek word ?telos which means ?purpose, end, or goal. The argument was popularized by William Paley who argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. And yet said Paley, the watch is not nearly as complex as your hand. The Teleological Argument argues then that the existence of a designer can be deduced by the complexity or the purpose seen in a system. Here it is in deductive
form:

[url=https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SsiPDSsNHhY/T2zMVJsla4I/AAAAAAAAAC0/bo4VdaOCcHA/s1600/wikiDNA.png][/url]
#1 Purpose and design in a system implies a designer
#2 The universe shows purpose and design
#3 Therefore, the universe has a designer

Premise #1 is argued to be self evident. For example, it's obvious that there is a difference between the Rocky Mountains and Mount Rushmore - one is designed the other is not. Premise #2 is what makes the argument fun because it is usually argued by listing unimaginably impressive scientific data and statistics. For instance,"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica."* Such complexity could never arise by chance. Here are some more examples:


-The odds of amino acids forming a simple protein by chance are less than 1 in 10 with 65 zeros behind it.*
-The simplest amoeba cell is made of about 2,000 proteins. The chances of this organism arising randomly is 1 in 10 to the 40,000thpower. To get an idea of how big that number is - the number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10 to the 80thpower.*
-see below for more fine tuning


Strengths:

• The argument can be very persuasive due to the impressive scientific data and improbabilities.
  
  
• Also, premise #2 is almost unanimously agreed on, even by secular scientists.
  

Weaknesses:

• It does not argue for God, let alone the Christian God, but only for a designer.
  
  
• It does not argue for the direct creation of the universe.
  
  
• Also, you must be well acquainted with science to use the argument forcefully.
  

• #3 THE MORAL ARGUMENT:This Argument is considered to be the most recent of the Classical Arguments, showing up in the late 1700's on the pen of Immanuel Kant. Kant was no friend to arguments for God's existence. However he did ask the question, "What would have to be true in order for our sense of moral duty to be meaningful?" His answer was - life after death and a judge capable of dealing punishment and rewards. Today, a variation of this argument goes like this:#1 If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist#2 Objective moral values do exist#3 Therefore, God exists(By "objective" I mean independent of what people think. So in this case we are talking about moral values that are good or bad no matter what people think.)Let's look at the first premise. If this world is just the product of time acting on space and matter then what could possibly be "bad" or "good." There would only be the way things are. For instance, it makes no sense to ask if a rock is morally "good" or "bad." It simply is. This is why atheist Richard Dawkins can say, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." The second premise is usually defended by pointing to actions that are obviously good or bad. For instance: torturing babies for fun, killing Jews,cannibalizing the disabled, raping and molesting preschoolers, etc. Would someone really say these acts are morally neutral and up to personal interpretation? Or are these actions wrong independently of what anyone thinks about them? If you think the latter is true, then you agree with premise 2. But if both premises are true, then God exists.Strengths:
  • Lots of people are not familiar enough with science for other arguments to be persuasive, but everyone has to deal with morality everyday of their life.
    
• 
  Weaknesses:
  • It does not argue for the existence of a Christian god, but only for the existence of a god that would make objective morality meaningful.
    
• 
  
  
  If successful this argument provides you with a god that would make objective morality meaningful. This god would be perfectly good and the standard and source of morality.
  

#4 The Ontological Argument:

The last major classical argument that I'm going to look at is the Ontological Argument. The wordontologyrefers to the study of being or existence. This argument was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 in a written prayer called "Proslogion." Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." The argument goes if God did not exist then it would be possible to conceive of something greater which is a contradiction and therefore God must exist. Most people think this is some sort of trick with word play, but interestingly almost every major thinker in the history of philosophy has dealt with this argument. While Anselm's version has largely been abandoned, some modern versions have resurrected the argument and today it is not only alive but surprisingly flourishing.

For this argument, we are defining God as the "greatest possible being." As the greatest possible being, God is by definition a necessary being.A necessary being is by definition a being that must exists if its existence is possible.

#1 If it is possible that God exists, then God exists
#2 It is possible that God exists
#3 Therefore, God exists

Yet again, the argument is valid, meaning the conclusion follows from the premises. The only way to argue against the conclusion is to challenge the premises. Almost everyone, including most atheists, would agree with premise #2 (at least initially). So the whole argument falls on premise #1. But as stated above, if God did exist He would be the greatest possible being, and the greatest possible being would have the attribute of necessity, and something that is necessary exists if it's existence is possible. "Yah right!" is what you are probably thinking, but it is interesting that this is relatively uncontroversial because one definition simply leads to the next. But if premise #1 is true, then the only way to deny the argument is to go back and deny premise #2. An opponent of the argument must show that the concept of God is incoherent or otherwise impossible.Otherwise, the argument is sound and the conclusion is true.

Strengths:

• Most skeptics would say that God probably does not exist. But to say that God probably does not existis just to saythat Godpossiblyexists and therefore concedes premise #2.
  
  
• The argument makes the issue black or white - God's existence is either true or impossible.
  
  
• If successful, the argument poses a few interesting situations. For instance every agnostic alive would have to believe that God exists in order to be consistent with agnosticism, thereby contradicting himself.
  

Weaknesses:

• The argument is very abstract (and silly to some) and consequently hard to take seriously.
  
• It is easy to deny premise #2, which is what most opponents of the argument do.
  
• The argument does not argue for Christianity (as revealed by Jesus), but only for the greatest possible being.
  

If successful this argument leaves you with the greatest possible being. This greatest possible being would have every great-making property.

---

If you still need some more convincing, check out the fine-tuning argument. In my opinion, it's one of the best arguments for the existence of God out there. This video is a helpful explanation of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

Nope, If we die then there's nothing we just fall for something like a sleep