4get_me, I apologise as well if i seemed rash in responding to your post. I agree with you, one can never have too many friends. All my regards mate.

elbaron:

Let us assume that man created evil or to put it in your own words, if man has made the world evil and if we are to further agree that God made man in his own image, does that not follow that God must have certain parts of him that are evil?

As you said, God made man in His own image, which means that He created man to be perfect--just as He is perfect. Adam and Eve were created in His image and likeness, and therefore had no sin, but it was their choice and will to sin and betray God. therefore God has no 'parts of him that are evil,' it was man that sinned,

Wont you agree that for man to know evil he must have learnt it from somewhere? Of course we can argue that man learnt from Satan, but God himself created this Satan. Am I making sense?

God did not create Satan, He created angels who then were exiled from heaven for rebelling against God. "There occurred a war in the heavens. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought against them. However they did not prevail, and there was no room for them in heaven. The great dragon was cast down, that ancient snake, known as Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were also cast down with him" (Revelation 12:7-9).

Did you say that God is hurt when he sees what his world has come to? If we must speculate to that, would it not, as a matter of simple logic follow, that God had no idea at the time of creation what his world would turn to? And if we agree that this is correct, would it not be safe to assume that God is not omnipotent? A god who does not have foresight does not appear to me to be all powerful. Let's think about these things.

Of course God knew what would happen before He created the world and before he created man, that's what makes Him God. "And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[a] Lord God Omnipotent reigns!" (Revelation 19:6). He created the world so we could share in his blessings and goodness. I may have made the world sound doomed and horrible in my past posts, but there are still a lot of good things left on this earth, and there are many good people-just as many good as there are evil.

this is a very good site that explains many aspects of God, creation, and the fallen man:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp

i just found this in a book i'm studying

One day a group of eminent scientists got together and decided that Man had come a
long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that
they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need
You. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why
don’t You just retire?”
God listened very patiently to the man and then said, “Very well, but first, how about
this, let’s have a Man-making contest.”
To which the scientist replied, “Okay, great!”
But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no—You go get your own dirt!”

www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rm.html,

This website talks the most rubbish i have ever heard!

They say that its demons that enforce religion? so what are they just going to get rid of demons themselves? Or just decide to live with them? So how did these demons come about? isnt it God that said that he created an angel and the angel chose evil and became the devil? So they are just using Gods words and saying he dosen't even exist!

They say if God was all-good and powerful, why would he make evil?
These people belive in demons so why isit that they find it so difficult beliveing in God. They can pass judgements that God dosen't exist but then they say demons do! so if demons exist are they saying we belong to the devil!! they obviously haven't though there claim throughly. God didn't make evil, he made Good. His good creation turned evil, and God even it but he then felt guilty to noah and his family because these were the only good people and made the world go on - the rainbow is PROOF of this promise!

Funny how this person did not talk about the prophecies in the bible.

Destroyed it****

people started doubting there is God even more when science started given us more reason not to but lets say something first to prove God is , we look at his word which is the bible. back in the day there was always this arrgument about where the earth stood the acient egyptians believed that the earth stood on five grat pillars, one at each corner and one in the middle, the greeks were taught that atlas carried it one his shoulders and some eastern scientist and theologians had a therory that it rested on the back of an elephant standing on a massive sea turtle. yet while all these theories were swiriling arround ,the bible spoke about the circle of the earht isaiah 40 verse 22 and about the earth being suspended over nothing job 26 verse 7 which says ''God stretched out the northen sky and hung the earth in empty space'' which is now universally accepted without question .

Luridguy, tell me something, do you have any authority aside that the bible that supports the existence of god?

I think you're missing the point. It's a funny thing for anyone to sit back and ask for evidence that God exists. Let's take a simple premise: if God does not exist, why bother fighting the claim that He exists? I don't think anyone who believes in God owes any non-believer an explanation or proof for His existence. Why? The reasons are numerous but I give a few here:

1. The claim that "God does not exist" is as strong a claim as "God exists". If one requires proof, the other requires proof as well. If you're asking for an authority outside the Bible that supports the existence of God, you should be willing to provide authority in the same way for His non-existence. You cannot claim that a phenomenon or experience is untrue or illegitimate simply because you have not experienced it for yourself. Not only that, but the claim that "God does not exist" supposes the idea that the one who makes the claim has an all-inclusive knowledge beyond our world and experience to state that something does not exist. You must know everything from start to finish in order to be able to categorically state in the entire universe that God does not exist. When people say that God does not exist, the question we ask is: "How do you know that for sure?" Mere conjectures and arguments will prove nothing - you must have a concrete proof in the same manner that you are asking others, in order to show that your claim is true.

2. In the case of providing proof for the existence of God, I've sometimes asked people to be very specific: what kind of 'proof' or 'evidence' are you asking for? If you demand scientific evidence, it just doesn't add up because you cannot subject God to the analysis of a test tube. What I mean is that, science has its limitations and does not provide answers to questions of non-scientific phenomena. It is as easy to deny the mysterious nature of the supernatural because the physical sciences cannot tell the 'how', 'why' or predict the 'what' of these phenomena. The same could be said with respect to some other type of 'evidence' that you seek, whether Mathematical, physical or philosophical. The one thing that the supernatural deals with is 'faith' - and that does not lose its value simply because you deny that faith is rational or a suitable test for questions of the existence of God. What surprises me is that, the one thing - faith - that is the key to verifying the supernatural is the very one you have failed to employ in this question of the existence of God.

3. There are many skeptic and atheistic claims that have been made to the effect that God does not exist because the history and prophecies recorded in the Bible are myths. Again, you'll hear many people saying this because the prophecies are not scientifically testable. But wait a minute - how are prophecies 'tested'? Anyone who wants to test a prophecy by any other means than how it should be tested is being intellectually dishonest. A prophecy in the ordinary sense is something stated that will prove its authenticity when it is fulfilled. You could as well state that tomorrow you'll have lunch - and then tomorrow your lunch is not missed. Is that prophecy? No. Why? Everyone can say anything at that level and see it 'come to pass.' But that is not the same as Biblical prophecies. If you study the Old Testament like Psa.22:18 and Isaiah 53, and compare them with Matt.27:35 for their fulfillment, you get an idea of what prophecy is like. So many Biblical prophecies could be delineated, but the basic question an honest skeptic should ask here is: Are the histories and claims recorded in the Bible true or false? Lazy arm-chair refutations will not help the skeptic - you will need to go out to the very land and spots to verify if Biblical histories are true or false.

I could go on and list dozens more of why the atheistic claim of the non-existence of God needs verifiable proof from atheists themselves in just the same way that they ask the believer to provide. If it's true that God does not exist, the least you can do is stop worrying over Him; afterall, there's no need to be alarmed over something or someone whose non-existence poses no harm to you personally. But if you must go on fighting a claim you cannot sustain, perhaps it is not the believer that is afraid - but you, because you fear that your own convictions will one day be proven colossally wrong in the presence of God Himself.

You don't have to live in that fear or perturbation. God's love is real - and you can know this for yourself only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Many blessings,
4gt_m. 

4get_me:

I think you're missing the point. It's a funny thing for anyone to sit back and ask for evidence that God exists. Let's take a simple premise: if God does not exist, why bother fighting the claim that He exists?

Because false beliefs [b]can [/b]have harmful effects. Once, in many cultures, people believed that human sacrifices were appeasing the Gods. Quite a harmful belief, I would say.

4get_me:

I don't think anyone who believes in God owes any non-believer an explanation or proof for His existence. Why? The reasons are numerous but I give a few here:

As long as believers do not do anything to interfere with the free choices of the non-believers, I would agree with you. unfortunately many believers try to impose either impliitely or explicitely their beliefs and morals on others. Although Christian morality is braodly commendable, there are a few aspects of Christian morality that - in my opinion - devalue human dignity.

4get_me:

1. The claim that "God does not exist" is as strong a claim as "God exists". If one requires proof, the other requires proof as well.

There are very few athaists that will make that an absolute claim like that, if only because it is impossible to prove a negative, unless one has perfect knowledge.

4get_me:

If you're asking for an authority outside the Bible that supports the existence of God, you should be willing to provide authority in the same way for His non-existence.

Why?

4get_me:

You cannot claim that a phenomenon or experience is untrue or illegitimate simply because you have not experienced it for yourself.

Indeed. If somebody else has independently verifyable evidence of said phenomenon, then there is no need for personal experience, something that is not the case for belief in a supreme being

4get_me:

Not only that, but the claim that "God does not exist" supposes the idea that the one who makes the claim has an all-inclusive knowledge beyond our world and experience to state that something does not exist. You must know everything from start to finish in order to be able to categorically state in the entire universe that God does not exist.

Exactly, that's why your demand for the proof of non-existence can never be met. Once you start to be specific about the properties of that supreme being, you can make claims about the existence of that being based on the verification of those properties or logical induction form those properties. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim God fails that test in all possible ways.
That God is very self-contradictory.

4get_me:

When people say that God does not exist, the question we ask is: "How do you know that for sure?" Mere conjectures and arguments will prove nothing - you must have a concrete proof in the same manner that you are asking others, in order to show that your claim is true.

That's why the strawman of atheism, as if it were claiming that no God can possibly exist, is just that, a strawman.
Be very much aware that atheism only implies the lack of god-belief, not the belief in the non-existence of God. That's why you have agnostic atheists, people that do not believe in God, but state that they're not in the possibility to have knowledge of God. I'm one of them.

4get_me:

2. In the case of providing proof for the existence of God, I've sometimes asked people to be very specific: what kind of 'proof' or 'evidence' are you asking for? If you demand scientific evidence, it just doesn't add up because you cannot subject God to the analysis of a test tube.

A logical proof on shared premisses would do as well, but even that is not possible.
Why can't you subject God to the scientific method? That's where most of the knowledge that advances our species comes from.

4get_me:

What I mean is that, science has its limitations and does not provide answers to questions of non-scientific phenomena.

Obviously not, otherwise it wouldn't be science.
What sources of knowledge do you propose except those coming from logical inference of observed phenomena?

4get_me:

It is as easy to deny the mysterious nature of the supernatural because the physical sciences cannot tell the 'how', 'why' or predict the 'what' of these phenomena.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

4get_me:

The same could be said with respect to some other type of 'evidence' that you seek, whether Mathematical, physical or philosophical. The one thing that the supernatural deals with is 'faith' - and that does not lose its value simply because you deny that faith is rational or a suitable test for questions of the existence of God.

If you want to have a meaningful dialogue with people that do not posses that quality, you will need to come with more than faith. After all, in the historical sciences on hardly ever comes to a conclusion based on one line of evidence only.
relying on faith is irrational and not suitable to determine the existence of God, it is the ultimate self-referential system.

4get_me:

What surprises me is that, the one thing - faith - that is the key to verifying the supernatural is the very one you have failed to employ in this question of the existence of God.

If you have faith, you believe without evidenc.e You determine beforehand that it is and do not allow questioning of that belief, as questioning would be abandoning faith.

4get_me:

3. There are many skeptic and atheistic claims that have been made to the effect that God does not exist because the history and prophecies recorded in the Bible are myths. Again, you'll hear many people saying this because the prophecies are not scientifically testable. But wait a minute - how are prophecies 'tested'? Anyone who wants to test a prophecy by any other means than how it should be tested is being intellectually dishonest.

Exactly, the stories in the Bible are largly mythical and do not stand the test of historical criticism. I don't understand where you're tring to go with your talk about prophecies, can you try to explain?

4get_me:

A prophecy in the ordinary sense is something stated that will prove its authenticity when it is fulfilled. You could as well state that tomorrow you'll have lunch - and then tomorrow your lunch is not missed. Is that prophecy? No. Why? Everyone can say anything at that level and see it 'come to pass.' But that is not the same as Biblical prophecies. If you study the Old Testament like Psa.22:18 and Isaiah 53, and compare them with Matt.27:35 for their fulfillment, you get an idea of what prophecy is like. So many Biblical prophecies could be delineated, but the basic question an honest skeptic should ask here is: Are the histories and claims recorded in the Bible true or false? Lazy arm-chair refutations will not help the skeptic - you will need to go out to the very land and spots to verify if Biblical histories are true or false.

Most of the stories are false or greatly exaggerated. As to the fulfilment of prophecies within the Bible canon, have you ever heard of the Jewish practice of midrash? (see http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm) This alone would indicate that even those few fulfilled prophecies do not prove anything at all.

4get_me:

I could go on and list dozens more of why the atheistic claim of the non-existence of God needs verifiable proof from atheists themselves in just the same way that they ask the believer to provide.

Atheist do not make positive claims, theists do. It's up to the theists to show that their claims are based on something.

4get_me:

If it's true that God does not exist, the least you can do is stop worrying over Him; afterall, there's no need to be alarmed over something or someone whose non-existence poses no harm to you personally.

False beliefs can have dangerous consequences.

4get_me:

But if you must go on fighting a claim you cannot sustain, perhaps it is not the believer that is afraid - but you, because you fear that your own convictions will one day be proven colossally wrong in the presence of God Himself.

You assume too much. Pascal's wager is there only for the believers. A careful extension of Pascal's wager makes belief in God an unreasonable position.

4get_me:

You don't have to live in that fear or perturbation. God's love is real - and you can know this for yourself only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Many blessings,
4gt_m.

Again the closed circle faith-belief-God-existence

4get_me, did Nferyn's response answer you? If it did, then I am glad otherwise, we can further explore the issue.

Dear Elbaron,

God does not contradict free will, in fact the only reason why you can decide NOT to believe in GOD is because He allows free will, ok?
Evil and suffering contradicts evidence of a benevolent God?!?, WHAT?!?, Did God ever ask for your opinion? When will you mortals get it? What YOU think does not matter, God is GOD, and if he says he is benevolent, then he is!, go read the book of Job in the bible, maybe you'll understand.
God is dangerous and religion is wrong
You refuse to explain how you reached such a conclusion,my guy from ghana

Your very attitude shows that the idea of god is dangerous. Does evil and suffering not contradict the benevolence of God? Answer that and we will talk

:oHoly Jesus Mary and Joseph who said God doesn't exist you. ei, make you no let God show you he exist. take time and study the bible you'll nearly jump out of your skin and beleive God exist. Han i can't beleive someone from africa could say that what happened has god forsaken you before

Teju Osho, is this supposed to be an explanation or a counter to the post?

Phew! sorry

why am i even sorry well you should answer the question you asked earlier yourself cos you are the one with the problem anyway, i was only saying what i think.hm

Dear elbaron,
nferyn did not answer my enquiries, and if you were satisfied with his post, that's okay. I'll find the time to make my reply as soon as I get back from work later in the day.

No, Explain to me y it does, Oh, I know what you will say , so I'll answer your question even b4 u post it.
1) Man has free will (even tho ure convinced he does not) and most of the evil that exists on earth originates from man, God has nothing to do with that!
Then you're going to say, "What about natural disasters like earthquakes and so on?"
Yeah, God never claimed the earth he made was perfect, did He?. The truth is Man will NEVER have the answer 2 ALL, when he does he'll become a God Himself (which by the way is the ultimate promise of Chrisitianity), so till then he'll just have to trust in God thru faith.

My ghanian guy 4get all the grammar wey we dey blow o, God dey o! youre threading dangerous grounds man!

Yeah, er, nature, how else did we get here, evolution?!? Blind people no go finish 4 this world

elbaron:

Luridguy, tell me something, do you have any authority aside that the bible that supports the existence of god?

simmy:

Yeah, God never claimed the earth he made was perfect, did He?.

Not every Christian would subscribe to that view - at least, not me. I believe the earth God created was 'perfect' in the sense that it had no defects as issuing from His Hands in creation. I don't see how a loving God would have created an imperfect earth and put His crowning work of creation - man - on such an environment (see Isa.45:18). The poor state of the earth today results from the impact of man on his environment, and in that sense the earth is presently in an 'imperfect' condition. We believe His promise of new heavens and a new earth, the home of righteousness (II Pet.3:13).

simmy:

My ghanian guy 4get all the grammar wey we dey blow o, God dey o! youre threading dangerous grounds man!

I'm not about grammar, but it is sad that some skeptics or atheists think they know it all when they make claims they cannot sustain. On the strength of I Pet.3:15 and Jude 3, I make my contributions towards a rational presentation of the Christian faith as far as I understand it. My aim is not to win arguments, for some self-styled atheists have one working thesis: to deny the rational for faith in spite of any evidence to the contrary. I do believe and hope that some can be helped and see that faith in Jesus Christ makes real sense; but if anyone who confesses to skepticism takes a position of staunch unbelief regardless of any conceivable proof, there's little that any other person can do to help him or her. Skepticism and atheism and all the '-isms' out there cannot change what is factual experience in the Christian faith: the Bible clearly states that, and from what happens many times I believe it is true -

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom 3:3)

But wait o, how did you figure out my location, that I am in Ghana? ? Em,,, er,, Seun, I don't know if my ISP is exposed for everyone to see! I hope not. Otherwise, simmy has some inexplicable prophetic powers

4gt_m.

nferyn, many thanks for your reply; but pardon me, it's a bit tedious to make much point out of your style of commenting on almost every line of my previous post - and I don't want to tow that line so that I don't inadvertently complicate issues all the more. That is not to say that I'm necessarily dictating how you ought to make your presentation. Perhaps it might have helped if you gave me a summary of your own views to serve as guidelines in my replies. Nonetheless, there are a few observations I'd like to make:

1. I'd agree with you that false beliefs can have harmful effects; but I don't think it is rational to make a sweeping statement like that in context of examining the claims of Christianity, unless you can 'prove' that the Christian faith belongs to that class of 'false beliefs.' Just because you don't like a belief system does not necessarily mean that it is false and harmful - you ought to show proof for that claim in exactly the same way that you require believers to do.

2. Now, that is precisely where the problem is - providing 'proof' for the atheistic claim. At best, an honest and rational thinker would say, "I do not know whether or not God exists", and he would not be required to prove his statement - for the simple reason that he has not made a categorical claim; he just does not know. This is closer to the agnostic, rather than to the atheistic, view about questions of the existence of God. On the other hand, when someone makes a categorical claim that "God does not exist", of obligation he ought to prove the legitimacy of that claim. He has made a claim that purports that he knows for a fact in the entire universe that God actually does not exist; and this kind of view takes center stage of acting like the atheist knows everything in the entire universe.

It is sad that many atheists have come up with an escapist theory that someone cannot 'prove' a negative statement. Is that true in every field of learning - including science? Let's go back to the history of philosophy and science for an illustration:

        Until the 5th century BC, many thinkers and philosophers, in speculating about the natural world,
        were of the view that the earth was like a flat disk. Later, a few others came up and categorically
        claimed that the earth was NOT flat. So, who was right? Notice that the views of the former were
        speculations, and as far as we know, they had no experiential or experimental basis that confirmed
        their position. But the refutation of those who claimed the opposite view were based on seeking to
        provide proof for their claim. Explorers, voyagers, astronomers, and various others came up with a
        plethora of 'evidence' for the contrary claim that the earth was in fact NOT flat. Today, we know better -
        the earth is not flat but spherical or geoidal.

What does this go to show? It shows that the idea that negative statements need no attempted 'proof' is wrong. Therefore, the atheistic claim that 'God does not exist' requires more than refutation by statement or criticism - it requires the atheist to go beyond his mouth to his own experience in order to come up with a rational, experiential and experiemental proof or evidence that indeed God does not exist. However you look at it, the atheistic claim cannot be sustained - at least, not until the atheist himself is able to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. It is a weak excuse to say that a negative statement cannot be proven when stating it as categorically as the positive claim. If one cannot validate an opposite statement, he does not need to state it in the first place. In making an assertion that God does not exist, elbaron is required to provide evidence to that effect.

4gt_m.

Quote from: nferyn February 26, 2006, 11:08:35 PM
That's why the strawman of atheism, as if it were claiming that no God can possibly exist, is just that, a strawman.
Be very much aware that atheism only implies the lack of god-belief, not the belief in the non-existence of God. That's why you have agnostic atheists, people that do not believe in God, but state that they're not in the possibility to have knowledge of God. I'm one of them.

What you call the 'strawman of atheism' only goes to buttress my piece - atheism's claim that 'God does not exist' cannot be sustained even by the atheist himself. But to attempt a fresh definition of atheism as only implying 'the lack of god-belief' is purely revisionist. Atheism proper has always claimed that 'there is no God' - that's the sine qua non that makes atheism what it is.

atheism:
n. belief that God does not exist;
the doctrine or belief that there is no God;
disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods;
godlessness; immorality.
Etymology: from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god.

(References: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism and Cambridge Dictionary)

If there is anything else to atheism it would be an appendage to the basic claim. Assuming that the dictionaries are wrong, why do atheists make it such a big deal upon themselves to fight a belief system that they cannot satisfactorily prove to be false? Look at it this way:
Is 'Frances' a name for boys or girls?
Mr. A says it's a boy; Mr. B argues it's a girl. Mr. C could say, "I don't know." And Mr D. says, "Frances, infact, does NOT exist!"

The answers of C and D are worlds apart: the former is not sure whether or not 'F' exists, while the latter categorically states that Frances does not exist. Atheism proper reflects D's position - and that is what my replies on this topic have been focused on. elbaron states clearly for all to see that 'God does not exist' - that is not the same thing as saying, 'I lack a belief in god.' Many who go by the various appellations of atheism with adjectives give me very little to worry about. Pardon me, but I'm not one of those who take my definition of atheism by a clause or appendage, even though I have great respect for whatever anyone wants to be called: agnostic atheist, buddhist atheist, or Christian atheist (whatever that means). If atheism is what this thread is about, I'd like to keep it simple by focusing on just that.

To the point that the atheist categorically makes the claim that God does NOT exist, he is required to prove his assertions. So far, I have not got any line in the replies to that effect; and that's why my submission is that no believer owes any atheist any proof in as much as the atheist himself is unable to validate his own claims in any concrete way other than with his mouth.

To the point that the atheist categorically makes the claim that God does NOT exist, he is required to prove his assertions. So far, I have not got any line in the replies to that effect; and that's why my submission is that no believer owes any atheist any proof in as much as the atheist himself is unable to validate his own claims in any concrete way other than with his mouth

I would love to simply point out that the argument that you have presented works both ways. However there is a problem with that; religion has been a cause of tension, killing and social problems since the dawn of civilisation. Unprovable claims made in the name of a being no man can see.

exu:

I would love to simply point out that the argument that you have presented works both ways. However there is a problem with that; religion has been a cause of tension, killing and social problems since the dawn of civilisation. Unprovable claims made in the name of a being no man can see.

"If atheism is what this thread is about, I'd like to keep it simple by focusing on just that."

4gt_m.

Ok, so you say ppl cannot prove God does not exist. . .yet nobody can prove God does exist. .

So, let me get this straight. . . there is this thing which nobody can prove exists. . . and nobody can prove doesn't exist

well, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

allonym:

Ok, so you say people cannot prove God does not exist. . .yet nobody can prove God does exist. .

So, let me get this straight. . . there is this thing which nobody can prove exists. . . and nobody can prove doesn't exist

well, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

MAN! wish i saw this earlier. My apologies but that must be the silliest line of reasoning i,ve ever come across! Are you for real man?

If I walk into a discussion between two people, persons A and B, and they are arguing about whether person C just gave birth.

Of course, person C is not available to settle this.

Person A cannot adequately prove person C gave birth.

Person B cannot adequately prove person C didn't give birth.

What conclusion can I draw. NONE. I cannot determine whether person C gave birth or not. So, I could either flip a coin and choose one, or I could choose the one with the most probability of being true. Statistically, it is more likely that a person has not given birth, than to do so. Therefore, if I wanted to satisfy my desire to know the outcome, without ever having the opportunity to meet person C, even assuming that this person exists, and not some fictional, imaginary, or metaphysical character, then I'd have to agree with person B based on the only reliable and logical evidence available.

People think they can outsmart God or prove his non-existance, we humans are so arogent.

Jackie24:

People think they can outsmart God or prove his non-existance, we humans are so arogent.

That of course, assumes there is a God to outsmart.

I sometimes wonder, is it possible to prove the non-existance of something that does not exist.

I suppose if you think about anything too long, it stops making sense.

To prove there is no God, we must first start with proving how everything happend and how everything works. We scientists can explain much but very little of what is out there to be explained, that is why we rely on the belief of God, because nothing could start without one.

Jackie24:

To prove there is no God, we must first start with proving how everything happend and how everything works. We scientists can explain much but very little of what is out there to be explained, that is why we rely on the belief of God, because nothing could start without one.

And who then reated the creator? It's an easy cop out to put God at the start of everything. It's not because we currently do not have the answers or understanding that assuming the existence of God solves the riddle, it only puts the anwers one step further away.

That's the point. The idea is that God was always there, just because humans cannot understand it doesn't make it impossible. And I was not using it as proof that he does exist, you're only hearing what you want to hear. I said that unless you can explain everything, you cannot say there is no God because that is a big part of his purpose, the unexplainable.