IS the existence or non-existence of God rel event?
348436
It's not really relevent, because people will believe what they want to believe.\n\nIF somehow someone managed to say they had scientific proof that god either existed or didn't exist, then I doubt that all that people would change their beliefs.
352270
Yes He exists. God is omnipotent, He does not have "magic" powers since magic indicates illusion. God has real powers. He created the Heavens and the Earth, mankind and all the creatures and plants on this earth. God is not in a tombstone. Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, He then ascended to Heaven. Read the Bible and pray. If you seek God, you will find Him, He will reveal Himself to you. Gos bless.
1186256
You compare different issues:\nSince god does not really exist, except in the minds of believers, god can't be anything, including fool!\nMan, believing something non existing is an idiot!
329366
it is impossible to prove a negative.  One cannot prove the non-existance of god just as they could not prove the non-existance of WMD's in Iraq.  The lack of evidence against something in both cases is not evidence of it's existance.
19285
Hasn't this question been asked, like, multiple times?\n\nHere are the search results for the other versions of this question on Y! Answers:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=Almo4YtpIzyrHJpEJ8PCC5jpy6IX?p=does+god+exist%3F
4767
Ok friend i will like to give the answer in 2 point of view.\n1)Scientific:As there is no existence of God according to science the number of God is always zero.However for the existence of universe there can't be another universe other than it because if u think of the word "existence" it is defined in such a way which includes space and time in it.That is existence of something means some instance of that event in a particular point of space time structure.But both space and time are limited to this universe.So there is nothing(actually there is no existence of word to describe this) beyond the universe.\n\n2)Philosophically:According to Hindu Philosophy(I have only learnt it and am satisfied)there is nothing name GOD.It's a word that describe the whole thing.What u say "aprior",past,time ,space,universe there is nothing such that.It's only what ur mind reflects to YOU from this universe.This YOU is the GOD.The reason behind it is the simple fact that something cannot be created from nothing it can only change forms.So it exist all the time and including the time.There is no numbers so no limits.But why the YOU feels something which is different from YOU as we feel new experience from the universe. This described as MAYA a camouflage created from that YOU to make the discriminations.\n So there is not many GOD nor one GOD it's YOU God which can't be described by numbers.
1082718
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved. It is a matter of belief, not of science which is only concerned with provable events.
1116103
Gremlin I have contemplated this question for many years. The conclusion I have come to is this. For the Universe to exist today one of two things that we deem to be impossible has to have happened. Either something materialized from nothing, or something always was. At that point that we call "the beginning" one of those two things was fact. Which one, we may never know. So for me, "In the beginning God created" is as good an explanation as any. It cannot be proved or disproved. Perhaps it may be stated that in the beginning God said "BANG!!!". Perhaps God's previous job was just being an idea. Perhaps it was being the Idea (logos). Then the idea exploded into being, and God said "BANG".
1008137
There is no proof that god exist.\n\nbut any way if god exist, this doesn't mean god created man of his own image, becasue how can something made of bady be god. Any thing that is made of matter is effected by time, so if god is made of matter then there is day that god born. but thats immpossibe. God is not made from any thing, and he is neither good or bad, he is neutral.\nand no one know why did he make man, and also there is no prove that he exist.
108477
If I weren't reborn and a reborn Christian, I'd say you gave the answer in your question and it was just a rhetorical question - that God doesn't exist, except for the god or goddess within each of us.  Since we already show ourselves to ourselves, we would just need to get in touch with our higher self within.  If we are it, that's why no outside God will appear.  However, I am recently reborn and believe what the Bibble tells me; it is the one true written and literal word of God.  So for me, as a Christian, God does show Himself in all His wonderful creations; and we see His glory manifested in the world as it is today.  Amen ;) .
543867
Man (We) would not exist, no animals (birds, mammals, extc.) would exist, no plants would exist, and the world would not exist. Don't you see, you run into a large problem without God. \n\nIt's like the world of thinking deeply but not profoundly! Which in there is no God but there is the Messiah, so in other words God does exist! No matter how hard you might try to erase His existence, He is and was and is to come.\nMeditate on this verse:\n\nRevelation 22:13:\n\n13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”[a]\n\nThat is what the Lord says, get use to it!\n\n-Perilous Rose
1123079
Oh good grief.  Physics 101.  Time is a function of the physical universe.  One of the four dimensions we easily observe.  It has no existance outside the boundaries of creation.  God did not exist "before" creation.  He exists beyond it.  The Creator is not bounded by his creation.  There was no "before" creation, as time itself is a function of that creation.  Nor will there be an "after" for the same reason.  The fact that we cannot comprehend an existance outside of time doesn't limit God.  It limits us.
535471
Woo hoo, a comment clearly designed to start a big argument on here, which I don't agree with, everyone has their own opinions!\n\nHowever, I sense that the basis of your point is that there is no real hard evidence to sustain the existence of any god, which is not the same as saying he doesn't exist, but is a definite statement to say that wehave no way of knowing. \n\nSo why everyone doesn't just live their life based upon earthly things, eg looking after and revering the earth around us, rather than pinning our hopes on some concept of a higher being, I don't know. \n\n(by the way, there IS actually hard evidence to suggest that the whole idea of a god stems from a part of the human brain, which operates only to convince us of a higher power, so we feel more significant than we actually are..)
1097338
It would take ABSOLUTE proof that He didn't exist.  No questions.  Someone would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist.
350422
Does it mean it doesn't, it's a fifty fifty chance. I prefer to believe that it does in fact exist. That is GOD, and I am sure glad He does, this world is bad enough with all the non believers who don't think that there are consequences for their actions, could you imagine if no one believed? What an awful state we would be in.
239853
Explain your question, do you want to know if God exists or why God exists?
800729
Whenever we argue about whether a thing can be proved, we should distinguish five different questions about that thing:\n\n\nDoes it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question." \nIf it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it. \nIf we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion." \nIf it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction). \nIf there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method. \nThe fifth point is especially important when asking whether you can prove life after death. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of life after death is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least before death) simply because by definition all experience before death is experience of life before death, not life after death.\nIf life after death cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.\n\n\nI.\nThe first reason for believing in life after death is simply that there is no compelling reason not to, no objection to it that cannot be answered. The two most frequent objections are as follows:\n(a) Since there is no conclusive evidence for life after death, it is as irresponsible to believe it as to believe in UFOs, or alchemy. Perhaps we cannot disprove it; a universal negative always is difficult if not impossible to disprove. But if we cannot prove it either, it is wishful thinking, not evidence, that makes us believe it.\n\nNow this objector either means by 'evidence' merely empirical evidence, or else any kind of evidence. If he means the latter, he ignores all the following proofs for life after death. There is a lot of evidence. If he means the former, he falls victim to the self-contradiction argument just mentioned. There is no empirical evidence that the only kind of evidence we should accept is empirical evidence.\n\nIn most supposedly scientific objections of this type, an impossible demand is made, overtly or covertly-a demand for scientific proof-and then the belief is faulted for not satisfying that demand. This is like arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that "I have not found Him in my test tube," or like the first Soviet cosmonauts' "argument" that they had found no God in outer space. Ex hypothesi, if God exists He is not found in a test tube or in space. That would make Him a chemical or a meteor. A taxi trip through Cleveland disproves quasars as well as a laboratory experiment disproves God, or brain chemistry dispro