Like anything else done by humans there are motives for what they do.  Who told you the thing was true?  Could it have been... a human?  \n\nScience and the scientific method are the only way to true reason.  I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but don't look for your facts in a 2000 year old book that was written and edited by people with an agenda.  \n\n\nYou dig?
214630
Bible is a prop. Man created god to its own image. But don't tell them or question it, they'll get upset.
24804
god may exist depending on your religeous  beliefs.same goes for the devil.however if your a bit skeptical of these beliefs you may be one of those other people who belive science provides an explanation to everything.
455291
It's interesting because I use the same thought process as you to arrive at a totally different conclusion.  For me it is like, God doesn't fit into my "nice neat little box" so he can't exist.  That might sound close-minded so I'll elaborate.  In my eyes, science is beginning to understand more and more of the world and our origins.  Now when I look at the overwhelming evidence of evolution and even just the happenings around me, I form a general understanding of the world that I am comfortable with.  Now when something enters my world view (God) I have to examine the evidence and tinker with the idea to see if it fits.  The problem with God is, I've seen no evidence and he just plain does not fit.  With science, no matter what your mindset, the evidence is right there for you to see regardless of your bias or what conclusions you draw from it.  Basically, if I saw real evidence of God, I could attempt to rearrange the rules and see if he fits, but I don't believe I should have to break the rules to even see evidence of him.  That makes it sound like the first step to becoming a Christian is to delude yourself.
363047
There is no objective evidence of God's existance. At least not in any form that would satisfy the scientific method. But I think we need to approach the existance of God in another way, something similiar to the way that we might approach seeking evidence for say, dark matter.\n\nWe don't know what dark matter is because we haven't seen it. But we know that there's something out there that creates a certain effect in the universe, and we call it dark matter. But what is it? No one knows.\n\nGod's existance is really a matter of what is most likely, or least likely. If we look closely at all the constituents of life and the universe, just in terms of what science and philosophy are able to approach, then there are a number of markers that we can investigate, asking the question, "What is most likely responsible for this"?\n\nThere's work going on in the area of quantum mechanics (quantum physics) that gives us some interesting insight into consciousness and the role it plays in the physical universe.\n\nIf we apply mathematics in the form of statistical analysis to certain "random events" in nature, we're left with the realization that the odds of certain processes happening strictly on a random, or chance basis, is so incredibly small as to be non-existant.\n\nIf we thoroughly weigh the two alternate theories to do with the beginnings of life on Earth (biogenesis vs abiogenesis, or life from life vs life from non-life), apply modern biochemistry or Mathematical analysis to that... we again face some interesting insights into the question of a conscious Creator vs a dead universe.\n\nI'm not going to tell you what you should or should not believe. All I'll say is that there's religious dogma and there's scientific dogma. Both are limited, both are invested in a particular worldview. Theology and philosophy ask pertinent and important questions and provide important insights, as does science and rationalism. Don't embrace one and reject the other. Rather utilize all the ways in which we, as human beings, are able to discern relevency, the nature of life and the relatedness of existance.\n\nIf we have an agenda going in, then we'll fulfill that agenda. But if we truly care about what's true, then we'll adapt our thinking and understanding to what we discover.\n\nAnd please keep this in mind; if we think we've arrived, we have nowhere to go.
621399
Probably it is human nature to try to find an explanation for everything. Before the establishment of science the most simple explanation was that since things such as fire, lightning natural phenomena were beyond human abilities, they were the work of something superior-the gods. So I guess it is partly a remrant from those times\nAlso I think it is in human nature to believe in something superior, because it fuels hope. Finding "evidence" for the existence of such a power reassures you that your hope is not in vain.\n.
541418
You know something, you are very uninformed. For you information:\n\nMost scientists believe in some sort of creator or deity. There is a simple explanation for this, and that is science can incorporate the idea of the supernatural since there are places that science cannot go.\n\nThe creation of the universe is one of them. Science can explain all the way back to 10^-43 seconds, but before that there is no explanation, there is only the unknown that is just as well explained as God as any other theory. So God and science are not at odds here, as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking would agree\n\nSpeaking of my great, great, uncle, several times removed Albert Einstein, he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the universe." What he meant by this was a repudiation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because to Albert the universe was a beautifully ordered and created place, created by God.\n\nSome scientist see God in randomness (Heisenberg). Others see it in harmonies of patterns and chaos (Glick and Mandelbrot). Even Darwin still credited God for creating the universe, though he sought scientific explanations for the evolution of species.\n\nThese men were/are fervent men with fervent beliefs. The fact that they deal in science in no way impedes their beliefs in God.\n\nNow, that being said, what you believe God did or does may not be the same thing that these men believe, maybe because they understand Gods universe better, maybe because they are more open minded than to narrow their vision to a few hundred pages of a book, a book that is interpreted many different ways so that who knows which version is right, if any. But when it comes down to it, they believe in God in one form or another, and maybe their views are more enlightened than most.\n\nYou can count me with them, by the way, as I take a more scientific view of the world. I am Deist, what that means is I believe in God as a first cause. I believe that God set the beautifully intricate stage, that we are still trying to understand, and let it be, to run the way it will, a universe of detail ever unfolding.\n\nBTW I gave you a thumbs up on the question, because while it was indelicate, it was thought provoking and deserved an answer, even if it was mostly my opinion.
628893
If God wanted to leave absolutely no room for anyone to doubt or try to disprove His existance and authority, He could have done. His thoughts and ways are better than ours - we'd love everyone to just have to believe - but God gives everyone the choice. People don't want it to be true that there is a God - the implications are too big. Like recognising that yes there is actually right and wrong - people don't want to go there - remember Pharohs magicians who tried to explain away the wonders that were shown them in Egypt - they didn't want to acknowlege God either - its nothing fresh!  The reality of our Eternal God who controls everything in life and death is just more than folks can take - they want to "live a good life and be happy" They don't want to know about a God who will hold us responsible what we do with our lives, it just doesn't fit with their "lifestyle choice". They will either try to logically reason a way that it could possibly have happened without needing a God or they will just instantly dismiss these realities without further thought as just "fairy tales". Don't fret. Yes some people will try to explain things in a way that ignores God, they refuse to believe - creation itself cries out! Its of no suprise in one sense ... there is going to be both the sheep and the goats. Stand firm. One day every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that He Is LORD.
452459
I disbelieve on the grounds of lack of evidence so short of proof being forthcoming I couldn't say I believed God existed. Convictions or subjective opinions don't come into it-it's purely down to a lack of valid evidence.
359890
Sure God exists. One simple questions you can ask anyone who does not believe in god is: Who created the initial energy that triggered the Big Bang. Scientists cannot answer this question because they do not know the correct answer, or maybe they know it but theyjust don't want to say it. The only correct explanation is that God created it. And this explains the existence of God. But I think that we, humans should please him for all his work and we should pray to him. But that goes into another debate on which religion we should follow. But just remember something: There is one God who has created everything and it is he we should be thankful to.
262349
I feel science because science is backed up by proofs and years of careful thought and study. What proof exsists that there was really a man named Jesus once. And if miracles happened at that time why don't they happen now? If there was somebody so great as Jesus why don't God send another one of his "sons" to Earth and help us. In the time of war, poverty, lies and other sins, it is where we need a god's guide but there is none why?!? Religion is major cause of wars among countries, people even disincriminate because of religion or race, why are these things happening when there is no definate proof that what we are fighting for really exists? WHAT IF IT DON'T?!? I haven't found a single person with proof that Adam and Eve really exsisted yet there is proof that evolution occured! I haven't found a single person with proof that there is life after death and that there is heaven or hell but there is proof that when a person dies his body is rotted by bacteria and finally dissovled into earth. Why is science always backed up by proofs yet we believe in something that has no proof whatsoever!?!?
86626
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi
246
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
91277
Answer:   The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his book "Why I am Not a Christian" that if it is true that all things need a cause then God must also need a cause. He concluded from this that if God needed a cause then God was not God (and if God is not God then of course there is no God). This was basically a slightly more sophisticated form of the childlike question, "Who made God?" Even a child knows that things do not come from nothing, so if God is a "something" then He must have a cause as well, right?\n\nThe question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.\n\nHow do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.
649038
Yes, based upon these laws of physics you just described.  No one has ever been able to prove that God existed in this manner.  But, that doesn't mean he/she doesn't exist.  It just means we have yet to figure out how to prove it.  I saw Jesus once, but then I realized that was just his nickname, he was actually Chris Furgeson.
211135
If you are looking for facts or empirical proof, you will not find it.\n\nThe one problem that individuals who cite the Bible have is the authenticity of the Bible. Where does it come from? How do you know that the Bible really is inspired or that it proves anything? Many will say that the Bible simply says so. That's a poor argument however. I can write anything and say it is inspired by God, but it isn't. Very plainly you cannot use the Bible to validate that the Bible is authentic and if you can't do that you cannot validate that there is truly a God.\n\nAnother good argument is that you exist. People have difficulty understanding how something could always exist and not have a creator. For example. The solar system that we are in is very intelligent in design. The gravitational fields and the way our planet is lined up perfectly to absorb just enough heat yet reflect away the harmful radiation of the sun is proof enough for some people that there is some sort of higher power. A God of sorts. The question posed by them is simply: How can this be without some sort of intelligent design? Where did the matter that makes up our planet come from? It all goes back to one single concept we don't quite understand which is time. The concept of time is the most unknown and least understood dimension of our universe. Is it by design as well? Who knows.\n\nAnother interesting argument is the presence of miracles. This is a hard one to address. Superstitious behavior arrives from something called reinforcement. Intermittent reinforcement at that. But that's too detailed to get into in this question, but would be a good one to ask.\n\nI would say that to answer your question correctly requires knowledge that we just don't have at the moment. I personally believe there is a God. I don't have proof of course, none that you could verify anyway. But I feel there may be something out there.
52099
This is a compelling argument against the existence of god. \n\nThe faithful always say that if you were walking along a beach and found a watch, you would presume that it was crafted by a watchmaker. Anything as complex as a watch could not just appear. They look at the universe, more complex than a watch and say that this is evidence of a "watchmaker." \n\nHowever, this argument just pushes the question of creation up a level. Who crafted the watchmaker? Who crafted the watchmaker's watchmaker? It goes on and on ad infinitum.\n\nThe faithful will then say that god needeth not a creator! \n\nWhat? Then why does the universe need one? "Because it's so complex," they'll say.\n\nBut isn't god more complex than the universe? The circle goes on and on.
616809
Many Christians often ask "why" rather than "how".  Even with all the facts that one could possibly obtain about the universe, even if scientific methods reveal exactly how the universe came into being and what caused actions and reactions to occur, there is still a nagging question of why any of this should exist.  It might be determined how the universe exists; e.g., random actions that culminated in what we observe now. But Science cannot satisfactorily answer "why" the universe "should" exist.  It can only point to how it came into being and how it exists and what forces and materials constitute it and manifest it.  The "why" question here is not a question of how it came to be, but what reason it should come into being.  Christianity is more concerned with the question of whether there is something behind the reason for the universe existing, rather than the question of how the universe came into being.  Science cannot answer whether there is a reason for the universe existing.  On another note, do you notice that even scientists have to have faith--in science?  A scientist cannot verify or repeat all the experiments and observations ever claimed by all other scientists; a scientist has to trust that his community holds truth in high regard.  So even a scientist relies on the notion of faith.