what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Blackleaf]

Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

You just brought up two crippling concepts to your god myth: free will and the problem of evil. Please watch the following 9 minute video, addressing both, before replying.

[mauricio]

Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

what understanding does he give you?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

What is your proof that God does not exist.

Since you didn't read this when I posted it in another thread:

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[SGOS]

have you seen the movie contact?
Imo that was actually the central point in the movie and i think the conclusion where the god believer and the scientist came together because they both shared beliefs rejected by their scientific peers, but what determines truth is not the belief or disbelief of scientists but rather what is evidenced by the universe. So if I had an experience like the women scientist in the movie I would probably believe like her too.

That ending bothered me, and I heard it was a Hollywood rewrite from the book in order to throw the evangelicals a bone.  But after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion as you.  People believe in all sorts of things, gods, flat Earth, aliens, and the curative power of copper jewelry, as well as known facts like the exact time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun.  But your qualifications or credentials, be you an outstanding theologian or a Noble prize winning physicist, are irrelevant if you don't have solid evidence.  Belief by itself is nothing.

What bothered me about Jodie Foster's role in that movie, was that when asked to provide evidence, she cried.  This was out of character from her ordinary nuts and bolts pragmatism.  What she should have done was just manned up and admitted she didn't have proof that she had traveled anywhere or met anyone.  Sure, try to convince your friends, maybe, but understand if you can't provide evidence, don't get so ego involved that you look like a fool. 

I was also disappointed with the aliens.  What the Hell were they thinking?  "Get Earth to spend 30 trillion dollars on a gadget that can only be used once to send one person off into deep space for a 2 minute meeting with an alien whose only function is to say, 'Welcome to the universe,' and then send you back without so much as a photograph or a complementary T-shirt.

Having said that, I think it's a great movie.

[Mike Cl]

Not one of those gods can do what God can do. Because of the free will that we have ,the things we go through in life bring good times as well as bad times. But its how we adapt to change and become content with life's issues. My God gives me understanding. He doesn't always fix and or remove the problem but He changes me for the better because of it.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yes!  I believe that!  Well, when you subtract all the god stuff.  We do adapt and change as we experience more and more in life--if not we don't change; there are those who do that--do the same stuff over and over.  I don't know if I've become 'content' with my life's issues, but I have accepted those things I cannot change and changed those things that I can.  (For the most part)  But none of that has to do with god--it has everything to do with me. 

[g2perk]

Yes!  I believe that!  Well, when you subtract all the god stuff.  We do adapt and change as we experience more and more in life--if not we don't change; there are those who do that--do the same stuff over and over.  I don't know if I've become 'content' with my life's issues, but I have accepted those things I cannot change and changed those things that I can.  (For the most part)  But none of that has to do with god--it has everything to do with me.

Then if it is all you. Teach others. Because you have gained somethings that a lot of ppl are searching for...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Blackleaf]

Then if it is all you. Teach others. Because you have gained somethings that a lot of ppl are searching for...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Yeah, like a fully functioning brain, for example.

[stromboli]

I like Terry Pratchett's concept of small gods, gods that work at a micro rather than macro level. Gods of shoe tying, for example. I would like a god of fill my wallet with cash or make me handsome to the women of the world or do the dishes so I don't have to. That is a useful type of god.

And god(s) don't exist. To qualify as one, said god would have to live both inside and outside of the natural world, work on the natural world without leaving a trace, and yet expecting worship. And in the process somehow manage to be perfect. Why would god allow free will and then punish you for practicing it? Gods by their actions and their nature are illogical. And the biblical god displays human characteristics of jealousy, rage and selfishness. Not a very good god to my mind.

[Blackleaf]

Not one of those gods can do what God can do.

Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.

[g2perk]

Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.

I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[g2perk]

Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.

In your life. What kind of real proof is needed. Be real. Not far fetched. He is not going to make you rich so forget that.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[g2perk]

Neither can yours. Prove me wrong. Ask your god to use a miracle to prove he exists, the same way he did to the Pharaoh, or like the time he sent fire from the sky to light an offering that was drenched in water. I find it odd how unwilling Christians are to try this. Do you believe that God really did the miracles described in the Bible? Of course you believe, without even seeing a single one. If your God is the same God of the Bible, then let him prove himself like he supposedly had many times before.

And why do you guys always blame God for bad things. Especially a non exist one....at least to you.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Blackleaf]

I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.

In your life. What kind of real proof is needed. Be real. Not far fetched. He is not going to make you rich so forget that.

And why do you guys always blame God for bad things. Especially a non exist one....at least to you.

Why are you replying to the same post three times in a row? Either finish your thought or use the edit function.

1. You cannot show me because your God is fictional. I asked God many times during my years of belief to show himself to me, and he never did.

2. How about talking when spoken to? Real people tend to do that. If God didn't respond to prayers with silence, it would be pretty hard to deny his existence, and yet he continues to hide himself as he demands people believe in him. How suspicious that the only people he talks to are the so-called prophets.

3. You're changing the subject now. This has nothing to do with my post, as I did not blame God for anything other than providing zero evidence to his existence.

[Mr.Obvious]

I like Terry Pratchett's concept of small gods, gods that work at a micro rather than macro level. Gods of shoe tying, for example. I would like a god of fill my wallet with cash or make me handsome to the women of the world or do the dishes so I don't have to. That is a useful type of god.

Currently re-reading 'small gods'. Still my favorite Terry Pratchett novel.

[SGOS]

I see you have been reading. Now ask God to show you. I can't show you.

I spent many years searching for god.  This was actually back during a time when I believed in God, so presumably, he should have been fairly easy to find, because many people who believe in God claim to have found him, although I tend to believe that is more of semantic equivocation.  It's not finding something in a real way, like finding an Easter egg, that you can show to Mommy and Daddy.  I think what it means is that you believed he was there, and then for one reason or another, you believe a second time that he is there.  But that's a stretch of the meaning of "find."

During my quest to find the god I believed in, I did have some experiences that I interpreted as finding God.  For example, after praying continually for a sign, I woke up one day feeling extremely delighted and filled with gratitude that I really believed God was there.  I'm not making any of this up.  I was simply overjoyed that I believed God was there, but nothing had really changed, because I already believed he was there, although previously not with such a heady elation.  But this new found elation that was so incredibly intense, began to fade, and a week later, I wasn't so sure I had found anything.  Well, I did find a level of elation.  That was certainly found, because before that, I had never felt elation that intense.  While I definitely found a new emotional level, I couldn't say I found God.  What I found was intense elation.  But a week later I was just believing in the god the way I believed in God a month earlier.

Later in life, I found even more emotions, much more intense than I had even experienced that one time, and soaring elation was sometimes part of it, but those emotions were from insights that most definitely had no logical connection with God.  So the quest was still unfinished and underway, but after 50 years, I decided to call it quits.  My one time belief in God had reached an all time low.  How long was I supposed to keep doing this?  I had spent over half of my life (assuming I'll die before I hit 100 years) not finding God.  All that searching kept turning up nothing, except for that one red herring I just described.  You know when you spend half of your life failing to find something, you start to have reasons to believe that thing probably doesn't exist, especially when that thing claims to to be there for the finding, and claims to be easy to find if you truly want to find it.

And besides, at that time of my life, my life experiences could more logically be explained by a combination of motivated effort and chance circumstances.  The reality of my world pretty much described a world where a god was not necessary to create the combination of randomness and motivation that made things keep going forward.  If there was a God, he didn't seem to be doing anything that affected me positively or negatively, and hence he seemed to be acting as if he wasn't there.  So pursuing it further logically seemed like a waste of time.  This was a happy time in my life.  I let myself be free to pursue life for its own sake