Can you recommend a good book debating the existence of God/a god?
103656
"How Shall We Then Live?" by Francis A. Schaeffer
37850
God. (cheating) This explanation is what everyone eventually resorts to when the other answers fail. Now, before I go any further, I should make clear that I'm not talking about any of the gods defined in various religions. Throughout all of human history, we've been trying to explain existence. But nobody has ever succeeded. And it's likely that nobody ever will. So we create the concept of God, whose only necessary property is being "that which explains existence." \n\nThis doesn't tell us much about god, though. It doesn't mean that any particular religion is correct. It merely defines god as something which answers The Question, because we have not been able to. \nplease read this http://www.toykeeper.net/philosophy/knowledge
1002367
I hope these links can help you:\n\nhttp://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm\nhttp://www.doesgodexist.org/\nhttp://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html\nhttp://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19858.asp
724035
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.
685740
There is no proof that a god exists which actually holds up (all of the ones that people have come up with so far have been knocked down).\n\nThere are however disproofs of the existance of some types of god which still hold.
606386
Hume’s argument:\nEvil exists (Premise 1) \nGod knows it does (Since he knows all) \nHe could prevent it (He can do anything) \nA good being would prevent evil \nIf he could \nSo God cannot be good \nBut if God exists he is good\n\nIt convinces me utterly, along with other aspects of the world and of logic.  I don't mean that god should necessarily prevent every single instance of evil, but thousands of children getting slaughtered (even by god himself as in the OT), misscarriages, stillbirths, anacephalice births, etc... just don't cut it.  Xians either need to accept that he can't possibly have all 3 qualities:\nomniscient\nomnipotent\nomnibenevolent\nor he can't exist at all.  But the trifecta just makes no sense whatsoever.
224242
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.
966788
The Flying Spaghetti Monster.\n\nSeriously, the only argument you have is that you can't disprove God. Or, there is a lack of evidence for his inexistence
475382
There is a book called The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.  Also look at books by Elaine Pagels, she had done a lot of research on Gnosticism, and her books are VERY readable.  Her book Beyond Belief would be a good place to start.\n\nIf you wouldn't mind, take a minute to answer my question on Gnosticism here:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsRYRzyKVbpNmHhm3Caj3qvsy6IX?qid=1006041910948
618667
Excellent question :)\nIn response...\n\nI used to be an atheist. Over a period of time however, I grew convinced of the existence of the Christian God, and ultimately committed my life to Christ. \n\nFor a draft-version of my journey from atheism to Christ, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/chri/testimony/seek.html\n\nFor scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God, see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm\n\nCordially,\nJohn
79801
The most popular is "What the Bleep Do We Know?" which was widely released to theaters and is now on video. (Of course, the whole thing is nonsesnse, but that wasn't your question, was it?)\n\nBeware of quackiness! Lots of people have written whole books with not a single logical thought in them. However, a very interesting (and original!) book that covers several worldviews is "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thic Nhat Han. I may be spelling his name wrong, and I don't agree with him sometimes, but he'll make you think and his arguments make you think ON YOUR OWN. Very good readin!
686481
Oh Dark One. \n\nI normally wouldn't answer the question this way, but with with a name like Philosophy I can't help it.\nLet's try some lateral thinking.\n\nb/bc/nb\nBeing, Becoming, Non-Being.\n\nWhat if I suggested that God is [in]a "state" of constant being.\n\nAnd Man, as a created being, is in a state of becoming.\n\nAnd nothing, Non-Being  ...well we know where that the question of "what is nothing" leads.  ...nowhere\n\n\nMan was created perfect. Fell into sin and became imperfect. If one accepts Gods plan of salvation is made in the constant state of becoming like Christ(Being).\n\nChrist(God) the only true Being.
653434
First of all, I believe God does not exist.\nIf you want a reason then contact me.
709623
Once when I asked for proof of God's existence, I was handed a Bible and told, "Here's all the proof you need."\n\nThe Bible is proof of God?\n\nThat is a very logical and sound argument.  \n\nI know beyond any doubt that there is a mischievous little monkey who's friend is The Man in the Big Yellow Hat.  I KNOW that to be true because I once read the book 'Curious George.'
95264
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
219702
Yes Very Easy,\n\nMany rational arguments exists, however I will show you one such argument:\n\nWhen one observes the Universe, it can be seen that the Universe is ordered, and this order is regulated by laws. These laws are what we call the laws of Physics, others refer to them simply as the laws of nature. \n\nA fundamental question arises, who or what established these laws? Did they create the Universe that they govern or did the Universe create them so as to bring order to itself?\n\nNeither case can be logically possible, since matter in the Universe is dependent on the laws that govern it, and the laws are a function of matter. Therefore there must be something independent of both matter and the natural law that created them.\n\nIt is the Creator, the only one who is unlimited, self-subsistent and eternal that is worthy of being worshipped. The Creator in Islam is called Allah\n[Partially copied and re-worded from the book “Islam and Science” Al-Khilafah Publications]\n\nThe Athiests Bedrocks:\n\n(1) Materialism (Steady State Universe)\n(2) Evolution\n\nThese have now been demolished:\n\n(1) The recent discovery of the Big Bang has killed the steady state Universe model that the Atheist have held so long.\n\n(2) All modern scientific data no longer supports evolution (however many scientists still remain shakled to this dead thoery, why? blind faith I assume)\n\nFor every Atheist argument a Thiest counter exists, evolution is really  the ONLY thing that is the last bastion of hope, and even this is dead (except they deny this EVEN though IT GOES AGAINST THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE)\n\nEDIT:\n\nAs for the question of life after death, I've answered that on yahoo answers more than twice (so heres a copy):\n\nPeople misunderstand the correct model of life and death. \n\n(1) Death is not the opposite of life (Dualism), Death is simply the ABSENCE of life.\n(2) If death is nothing, then what were you before you was alive? You were nothing i.e. dead, so the correct order is lifer AFTER death and not the other way round like some people assume. So it is incorrect to say that no one has come back from death, since everyone that has life has come from death.\n\n\nI hope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
472030
Not defensive, Heck I'm not even atheist.\n\nWhat an atheist is....\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/about.html\n\nIt is posible to prove that an all powerful God does not exist.  If you realy want the answer it is out there.  I have posted it here several times.\n\nI don't see any of this being "blind".....\nIntelligent design is flawed.\nhttp://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/creation.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html\n\nThe universe was not made for us. Religion is against Physics.\nhttp://www.skeptic.com/archives36.html\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#universe\n\nGod is silent.\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html#silentgod\n\nIt disagrees with science.\nhttp://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/talks/PRC-talk.html\n\nFree Will\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_gale/freedom.html\n\nThe problem of Paul\nhttp://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm\n\nDISSECTING CHRISTIANITY'S\nMIND-SNARING SYSTEM\nhttp://www.deism.com/thinksam2.htm\n\nEvolution\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html\nhttp://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/03.02/11-evolution.html