Here's one for the religious..

[SnailyBoy]

 

I have yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, and without wishing to sound smug about it, I'm not expecting to.

 

Same could be said for proof too

[RootsBooster]

I have yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, and without wishing to sound smug about it, I'm not expecting to.

 

You never will, nobody can prove that something doesn't exist.

 

For me there is no question of "does God exist?".

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

[harvey19]

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

The simple answer is, Just look out of your window and consider the universe.

(This will be my only contribution to this thread)

[SnailyBoy]

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

The simple answer is, Just look out of your window and consider the universe.

(This will be my only contribution to this thread)

 

You need to read more than one book

[RootsBooster]

The simple answer is, Just look out of your window and consider the universe.

(This will be my only contribution to this thread)

 

That would be a reason consider "why does stuff exist?", it's a large jump to conclude that it must be because one or more of the gods exist

[quisquose]

For me there is no question of "does God exist?".

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

Neatly put.

 

[jfish1936]

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

The simple answer is, Just look out of your window and consider the universe.

(This will be my only contribution to this thread)

 

I looked out and considered the universe; I looked, and considered the wonderful variety of life on Earth; I looked in, and considered the workings of my mind.

 

Now I have two choices:

 

1/. These can all be explained by natural causes, which is the "scientific" explanation;

 

2/. This is all too much for me to grasp, so I need a miracle-working "Big Daddy" to have set it all up, and I'll refer to Him/Her/It as "God".

 

I prefer the first version.

[Ryedo40]

Not read all posts but I would assume that even people that don't "believe" in god or religion, have said a little prayer at some point in their life.

 

I class myself as C of E but don't go to church, but I have prayed when the need has arisen. I think it is human nature to do this, and as I say most will have done this at some point in life.

 

Prayer is a learnt behaviour. It's not part of our human nature.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 13:39 ----------

 

"If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

The simple answer is, Just look out of your window and consider the universe.

(This will be my only contribution to this thread)

 

Looked out my window this morning and saw a rather large puddle. Therefore the puddle god exists.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 15:00 ----------

 

...but I hold the view that all deities, at the point of invention, were brought into the world to serve some political purpose- there was a distinct social need that they fulfilled (or they wouldn't be adopted widescale) and I like the fact that occasionally we can discover evidence for that need.

 

My view is that deities, at the point of invention, were – generally - abstract or anthropomorphised, animistic placeholders used to explain why things exist and why things are the way they are. Naturally, people would have been prone to believing those “explanations” – and those peddling them would have been seen as wise or intelligent; they'd have made an easy living, gained wealth, fame, etc. Shamans, witch doctors, priests – whatever you want to call them - would have been popping up all over the place. In turn, their “explanations” would have given rise to religious or superstitious forms of paranoia and those who believed would have increasingly relied on those doing the peddling. It would have fast become political.

[onewheeldave]

You never will, nobody can prove that something doesn't exist.

 

For me there is no question of "does God exist?".

If anything, my question would be "what reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

You're wrong- plenty of things can be proven to not exist.

 

If you were right, then you'd presumably have a proof that a 'proof that something doesn't exist' doesn't/can't exist.

 

Also known as a contradiction

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 14:17 ----------

 

I looked out and considered the universe; I looked, and considered the wonderful variety of life on Earth; I looked in, and considered the workings of my mind.

 

Now I have two choices:

 

1/. These can all be explained by natural causes, which is the "scientific" explanation;

 

2/. This is all too much for me to grasp, so I need a miracle-working "Big Daddy" to have set it all up, and I'll refer to Him/Her/It as "God".

 

I prefer the first version.

 

Definitly not critisising you here, but I will point out that that's exactly why you're not scientific on this issue, in that statement.

 

Preference is utterly irrelevant when it comes to establishing scientific truth.

 

Though it most definitly has to be taken into account, purely so that the risks of 'preferences' creeping in to experiments can be minimised (ideally, eliminated).

 

Scientists are human, and subject to the insiduous effects of their own preferences. Plenty of scientists at the time, would have 'prefered' for black holes to not exist, or for everything in the universe to not be subject to the velocity of the speed of light or below.

 

This is why proper scientific experiments are so rigid and require so much design- in part it's to eliminate unconscious (or conscious) preferences corrupting the results.

 

Most religious people prefer option 2- preference is irrelevant.

[Ryedo40]

You're wrong- plenty of things can be proven to not exist.

 

You can always claim non-existent "things" exist while placing them out of reach. So I think you are wrong.