Does God Exist?

[VirtualG]

Something that exist is either matter or energy, since god is neither he does not exist.

[BaNaNaS]

yes, I do believe in God

[Ardemax]

Something that exist is either matter or energy, since god is neither he does not exist.

you don't know what god is made of, so that is a fail

[RandomManJay]

you don't know what god is made of, so that is a fail

The thing is if he is made of anything then there would be proof of his existance and if he is made of something, then he would be bound by the limitations within this universe/reality/dimension. So if god is made of something, his power is demeaned by the fact that he is physical, that's why he's known to be omnipitent and doesn't have a physical form because of the limitiation that would come with it, hence the dilemma of his existance.

[Glitter]

i dont think theres a god, no.

[Ardemax]

The thing is if he is made of anything then there would be proof of his existance and if he is made of something, then he would be bound by the limitations within this universe/reality/dimension. So if god is made of something, his power is demeaned by the fact that he is physical, that's why he's known to be omnipitent and doesn't have a physical form because of the limitiation that would come with it, hence the dilemma of his existance.

well if he created matter then surely he'd know how to be undetected/not seen by existance?

[RandomManJay]

well if he created matter then surely he'd know how to be undetected/not seen by existance?

Hence the dilemma?

We've both made assumptions about his existance and to how powerful he is. I put that if he is physical he would be limited by forces within this universe, therefore limiting his omnipitency, also I assume that everything in the universe must be physical (either through physical matter or effect (e.g. gravity and light etc.) in order for it to exist. You assume that he created matter and considering that, you assume that he would know enough about the universe to conseal his physical or non-physical existance from us.

Both arguements describe god in a completelt different way. My way states that if he does exist, then he would be physical and therefore bound by our universe, this doesn't limit him completely as we don't know how powerful someone can be while being bound by our universe, so he may still be here, but considering there is no proof of him every being here, its reasonable to assume he doesn't exist as there is no other proof to contradict this. Your way states that god doesn't need to be physical to exist, he created matter hence he knows enough about it etc. You describe him in a way which puts his power higher than anything in the universe, the power to even maniplate himself to keep himself hidden, something which defies his omnipitency because it boasts that his power is higher than himself, therefore he cannot understand it (this is taken from the idea that we could not even come close to comprehending gods power because we are not to his level, if god is not even at his own level, how can he understand his power? Like manipulating the omnipitent).

There are dilemmas in both arguements, but considering there is no proof of his existance, non-believers will refuse to believe he is or was ever here. And considering the lack of proof, believers will play the same angle as they always do, he doesn't need to be physical to exist, he is god, the 'Blind Faith' explanation.

[Ardemax]

But to judge God you must first read the Bible surely?

[Black_Apalachi]

But to judge God you must first read the Bible surely?

Tbh even though a very large amount of people wrote the Bible, none of them ever saw God any more than we have. Actually I'm probably only saying that as an atheist, a Christian would point out the various stories involving the Holy Spirit etc.

[RandomManJay]

But to judge God you must first read the Bible surely?

I was a Christian till I was 11 years old and even then I knew the bible was a load of rubbish, I got an abrided version Bible from my secondary school as a part of my RS studies which was pitiful to be honast and although I haven't read the entire bible, I have read certain parts and have read arguements for and against certain stories and how they are depicted within the bible. I also know of and read many stories which weren't included within the new testement which personally I believe should have been, it would have made it easier to believe I assure you. To put it bluntly, the modern day bible is a tainted piece of crap, altered by dominant values at the time and mis-translated so many times that it isn't even the bible anymore, also considering the stories in the bible were written by men who lived over 100 years after Jesus' death, there isn't much to it other than stories being passed down from generation to generation, changed with each telling. So in the end, no one today has read the true bible. The bible may be the symbol and the main text of the religion, but the religion itself would be hauled into question if you compare the modern day bible to the one over 1000 years ago.

So I don't think the bible has anything to do with judging the existance of god as its a book full of tainted stories so theres no knowing if they're actually true or not. I know some people take the bible as the actual word of god and I'm fine with that, and if you do, you do reserve the right to say that we must read it, but if you don't theres no point since to an atheist, the bible is nothing more than stories and holds no impact on the judgement of god. The teachings which are taken from the bible are valid, such as no stealing or murdering or adultary, but thats all that can be taken as valid as these are the main values in todays society, but other than that theres nothing to it.