What is the rationale behind "GOD"?
485516
#3\nHe is a living entity far beyond our comprehension.\nScience tries to explain His creation.\nReligion tries to explain who He is.\nThe only way to know Him is through Jesus Christ.\nChrist alone is the way, truth and life.
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.
790629
You must first wonder what the hell he was doing for the previous trillion,god zillion years.\nWas he standing in the middle of nothing and being the god of nothing?\nWhat the hell was his reason for being?\nHe couldn't be considered a god at that time.\nWouldn't he have to be god of something?
77039
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.\nread this: http://www.toykeeper.net/philosophy/knowledge
1041669
Neither, because who or what created God? Find a logical way of explaining what came before God, and you will move away from logic and into faith, right?\n\nWhat came before God?
490129
Valid point.  At the very best, if proven, any argument for a deity can prove "god".  I use a lower case "g" on purpose.\n\nAll the arguments for god (which, by the way, were derived by Aquinas from the pagan greeks) at best, only prove a deist creator.  None spell out a specific "G"od, much less Yahweh.\n\nThis is all despite the fact that centuries of rational thought have exposed the glaring holes in these arguments.  Nevertheless, as I said, even if they WERE rational arguments, the only "prove" deism, nothing more.\n\nSo we arrive at the same standpoint most people are anyway...is the God Yahweh?  Jesus?  Buddhah?  Allah? Native American Corn God?  Arguments for ID and a creator prove nothing about religion.\n\nJefferson and Paine were both strong deists, who bought every argument these theists could throw down about the existance of God (though great men both, not their strongest positions, in my opinion.)  However, both men abhorred Christianity and theism in general.\n\nArguments for "g"od get you absolutely nothing, and leave people exactly where they were before, choosing their own deity.\n\nThat is why the bible has nothing to do with proving "g"od.
508063
GOD is GOD.\nGOD is LOVE.\nGOD is TRUTH.\nGOD is JOY.\n\nYour body is WHAT you are IN, not WHO you are.....\n\nThe reason you cannot SEE God, is there is nothing else to see.... nothing to compare God too.\n\nReligions are HUMANITY trying to explain the unexplainable.\n\nThe main reason this reality seems so real is that people forget everything else.... \nGod does not forget anything or anyone.
545011
please.....understand this...\n\n\n\nGod is a proper name.. HE is what (us) Christians call as their (our) divine Creator...\n\n\n\nbut god is a common name... it can be anything or anyone that resembles something with great power or influence..it can also be a synonym for deity...\n\nlike pagan gods or "money is a god" or animal/ nature gods (kami)... anyway, point is, when u capitalize "G" then you can't use it in statements like "money is a God"..y? \n\nwell like I told you "God" is a proper name.. using "a God" is grammatically wrong (and is very much wrong in essence) because of the article "a" added to it....also, statement like that violates the First Commandment (which I just did, anyway I was just using it for clarity sake)
718535
- Think yourself and believe.\n- God is not an object to see or touch.\n- You can understand a dog or a cat or others by seeing them.\n- But the GOD is everything and existing everywhere from Light to dark, sand to hill and much more beyond the imagination.\n- He never born and so have no death.\n- He has no parents and he is the creator of all.\n- One can imaging the god and its power by heart and certainly not as someone says like a man, a cow or any form of idols.\n----------------
29149
IN THAT case we need to agree in as to what a god is to you. Here are the definitions of  God, and A god: \nA being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.\nThe force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.\nA being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.\nAn image of a supernatural being; an idol.\nOne that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.\nA very handsome man.\nA powerful ruler or despot.\n   Notice that i said God and a god, ince you mentioned christianity, then we need to talk about God, because Christianity does not praise gods, But "God" .Pay attention to the 1st definition. That is the one that applies to Chritianity, because they praise it, But they do not praise satan. Satan is just something they dont want to deal with. A god is something you worship, it is not something you detest.
314678
First of all: I consider it really important to base your faith upon something that is reasonable, because if you do not do so, when faith is replaced by doubt, it would be really difficult to sustain. according to this, I consider that God is evident because: if we, the world we live in, and the whole universe surrounding us exist, then we could say that "Emptiness" (understand this as the lack of everything  doesn't exist), therefore Everything (understand this as the total lack of Emptiness) exists, therefore God (or something that could be considered to be infinite and eternal exists.=)
938813
See my article pertaining to the traditional notion of God.\n\nhttp://tcrnews2.com/spong.html\n\n\n\n\n\n\n---
680038
This is a very good question.  People that deny it are narrow minded and need to look at it for what it really is, truth.  It has to be either one or the other, for if there really is a god, then why were we created other then the reason that he needed something.  If god does not exist then it was man that came up with him, kind of like an imaginary friend, to comfort him and give him the answers to life after death.  Personally, I believe that if god cannot be needful, then man had either to had a part in making him seem so perfect, or man made him up.  That is my logic, there's not much to it, sorry for that...
778244
To me none of this makes any sense. Things like this is what made me question the validity of religion in the first place.\n\nI DO believe in the ultimate being. This world & its functions didn't create itself. There were programs to follow & rules set forth.\nSure the universe probably came from a big bang. But something had to make the bang possible. Evolution all well & good, yes, but something was programmed to make that possible.\nI'm not an atheist because of religious reasons but rather for logical reasons. Something had to come from something.\n\nBut I don't believe in this Satan Devil character at all.\nIt's hokey.\nGod created an assistant???\nWhat the hell does God need an "assistant" for anyhow?\nThis is not limited mankind this is Ultimate Being!\nGod needs nothing but God.\n\nIn fact this whole thing about God needing us makes no sense either. For what?\nIf God needs others then God is limited and not the ultimate being. And if what we refer to as God is not the ultimate being than who is? I ain't got time for no middlemen. Who's the top dog?\n\nMy theory on this whole universe is that it is nothing more than God exploded. All pieces and parts within are fractions of the whole, the ultimate. From a simple rock to the species of mankind to oil sludge.\nWhy this happened no one will ever know. We're only fractions and we can only get fractional information.\n\nIt is true. God always was and always will be. But hell if we'll ever know why that is or why it should be.\nJohn Lucas
222121
Even if there is no God, it doesn't change the fact that God serves a purpose in this world for us.  If we could reason that humans "made up" God, that doesn't mean that such a belief is necessarily bad or insane.  We also "made up" language, art and laws.  Since these are human constructions rather than any real, physical, objective things, does that make us crazy?  Certainly not.  Laws, art, and language all serve useful and legitimate purposes.\n\nGod also serves an important role in the world of men, regardless of His existence.  If you are a materialist atheist, it is still likely that you believe in the tenets of evolution; and if you hold such a belief and understand the theory, you should be able to understand that humans do not adapt in arbitrary ways, and they certainly do not expend the great amounts of energy we invest in our religions if such beliefs are detrimental to procreation and progeneration.  Quite the contrary; the high costs that can often come from religious beliefs must necessarily be counter-balanced by some greater benefit to such beliefs, elsewise religion would be selected against and eliminated.  Instead, theism is ubiquitous.  Hence, the belif in God serevs a purpose.\n\nEdit: DrAnders, you're dead-wrong.  Theists are, as a general rule, more abundant and genetically prosperous than atheists.  The simple truth is that to cease breeding is contrary to the nature of the brain.  the brain did not evolve for arbitrary purposes like astronautics; it evolved to increase the odds of progeneration.  If, as is common in atheists, you reason your way out of procreating, you are going against the natural purpose of the brain.  And we continue to see higher fertility rates in theists versus atheists.\n\nCheck your priorities and values--where do they come from?  What ultimate purpose do they serve?  It is the nihilist that is insane.\n\nBTW, the "opium of the people" line belongs to Karl Marx, not Mao.
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
1184675
I wrote an article on this. Paste below is a small excerpt:\n\nConsider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!\n\nSecond, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.\n\nThird, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!\n\nFourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, moon gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location. (1)\n\nFifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.\n\nSixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." (2)\n\nLast, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. Rather, the universe was created out of pleasure! It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Bible is the best explanation.