When you are watching television, talking to friends, doing homework etc. don’t you often think how crazy life is? Some may say that life is just particles happening to bounce off one another but I believe that everyone is important. Science can explain some things in theory like rainbows are created by light shining through water in dense atmospheres, but something as wonderful as that and as wonderful as life itself can not simply be a coincidence. Can you really bring yourself to think that your life will end as fertilizer for a rose bush in a cemetery? God gives purpose, purpose is life.

There are more than a billion Christians in the world(the greatest chunk of believers).Followed by Muslims(second largest believing majority). Next in line are agnostics and atheists(agnostics do not hold a position on the God debate and atheists include deists who reject theism but may believe in creation/'one creator, at least'). God's teachings are perfect and they stirred the minds of the majority of the world. And continue to do so centuries later. "Love one another": it was original when Jesus said it and it’s surely the best way to live.

Why would people kill so many for an idea, if the idea did not speak to them? And yes none of the modern religions that you mention(including Scientology) REJECT a creator or God. Which only means that they aren't NEW ideas, they are simply recycled/re-engineered forms of an old belief. Can you conjure a NEW idea with a large following? Perhaps(but unlikely),however you cannot invent a NEW idea that has a following greater than that of all god-fearing/believing religions, encompassed.

The belief in no God preceded theism, in all its forms. And yet despite the anti-God head-start: Theism, rather deism has won the race.

"They end up believing that the son of...an unfaithful wife is their savior.":Um there's a reason why she is called: The 'VIRGIN' Mary. And not 'all' believers in God believe in Jesus.

Your entire argument is that divorcees have the WORST life? Well, if the divorcees themselves, thought so, they wouldn't get a divorce now, would they?

All you have proven is that religious people are not constrained enough to force themselves to stay in a rotten marriage. And that they exercise the brilliant choice of getting out, while they can. This gives 'them' a better life not a worse one.

These people are wrong. God has given us all the opportunity to do good, but unfortunately many choose to ignore this. When you see someone suffering don’t stand back and comment on how unfortunate that person is; you have the chance to help. In order to refute some of the opposition’s points, let us first make the distinction between the two types of "bad thing": those caused by the natural world, and those caused by the humans that inhabit it. To refute the point that "He must either be unaware, lacking in power, or unwilling to assist and prevent suffering" in the case of natural disasters, one could first point out that the Bible claims not only that God did not try to prevent that flood, but actually caused it to happen, and then could go on to discuss the delicate balance of nature that we rely on in order for life to continue on Earth. Were God to prevent every earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, flood and so on, which cause death and suffering for many people, would the environment still exist for us to exist? Surely the maintenance of the means for the continuation of humankind is reason enough for God to allow such disasters to occur. With respect to "bad things" brought about by humans: God, being a benevolent God, gave us free will: the ability to choose whether to good or bad. This is no poor excuse used to brush aside the "bad things" as irrelevant, but instead affirms God’s benevolence in not creating us as slaves to His will.

Regarding the point on the right about housemates, surely the dormitary manager can whisper advice to at least some of the housemates such that they help each other out? Even if some disease existed, that would hardly disprove the existence of the dorm manager if it was up to the housemates to follow instructions themselves? To my knowledge that is the belief of most religions who generally accept that miracles are hard to come about these days. As the leading rabbi in England said, 'Don't ask, "Where was God at Auschwitch?" ask, "Where was Man?"'.

People argue that religion cannot be falsified, as there is no compromise in what people believe. For Example ‘God Exists – and he loves me’ – Christians won’t have this any other way, this is 100% true and cannot be compromised. However this is not the only thing that people don’t compromise with, you also cannot falsify or compromise… Math. No-one complains that that doesn’t exist.

The secret reveals a concept in physics that says that thinking about something enough does make it exist. The law of attraction^[1]. So , if you 'really' believe in an invisible unicorn , that you can not feel, it might be there. But then again you wouldn't really believe in it unless there was at least a shred of evidence. You will only believe 'strongly' in something if there is some definable truth in it. The reason kids believe in Santa Claus is because their fathers dress up and roll down the chimney, for their eyes to see. A lot of kids are wise to the ploy, ALSO after obtaining 'evidence' of some form against the existence of Santa.

And to reassert the point in the first paragraph. It is not really possible to prove anything but your own existence^[2].(Descartes also wrote a lengthy GOD-Proof.) Maybe, you shouldn't believe in anything but it isn't possible not to.YOU believe there is no God: yes that is a belief just like any other.

The only reason 'you' do not believe in God or a creator is because YOU have been told there isn't one. It isn't something you discovered all on your own with the use of logic. Since logically incomplete or imperfect information cannot provide one with perfect/complete answers.

1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8
2. ^ Cogito ergo sum- Rene Descartes

If anything exists, God exists.^[1] Stefan Hawking's very interesting interview. HE is not an atheist.

1. ^ http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

The Argument from Change http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1 \ The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything. \ As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state. \ Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change. \ Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it. \ Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change. \ The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God." \ Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change. \

The Argument from Efficient Causality http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#2 \ We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music. \ Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. \ But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent. \ Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers. \ Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being? \ Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand. \ This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be. \ Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be—even though their causes might no longer exist. \ Reply: First, if the kalam argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now. \ Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist—and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe—and you as part of it—could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things—something not dependent as they are. \ And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them—even an infinite number, if that were possible—we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need—for being, for existence—cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends.

The Argument from Time and Contingency http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3 \ 1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. \ 2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. \ 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. \ 4. Then right now nothing would exist. For \ 5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But \ 6. From nothing nothing comes. So \ 7. The universe could not have begun. \ 8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built—in possibility not to be. But \ 9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So \ 10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. \ 11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. \ 12. This absolutely necessary being is God. \ Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence? \ Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built—in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."

The Argument from Degrees of Perfection http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#4 \ We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not. \ So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various "distances" from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of "more" or "less," what the extremes possess in full measure. \ Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between "more" and "less." For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them. \ Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal. \ But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "best," a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings. \ This absolutely perfect being—the "Being of all beings," "the Perfection of all perfections"—is God. \ Question 1: The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective? \ Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not. You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it.

The Ontological Argument http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#13 \ The ontological argument was devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who wanted to produce a single, simple demonstration which would show that God is and what God is. Single it may be, but far from simple. It is, perhaps, the most controversial proof for the existence of God. Most people who first hear it are tempted to dismiss it immediately as an interesting riddle, but distinguished thinkers of every age, including our own, have risen to defend it. For this very reason it is the most intensely philosophical proof for God's existence; its place of honor is not within popular piety, but rather textbooks and professional journals. We include it, with a minimum of discussion, not because we think it conclusive or irrefutable, but for the sake of completeness. \ Anselm's Version \ 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. \ 2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought." \ 3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. \ 4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). \ 5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought." \ 6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. \ Question 1: Suppose I deny that God exists in the mind? \ Reply: In that case the argument could not conclude that God exists in the mind and in reality. But note: the denial commits you to the view that there is no concept of God. And very few would wish to go that far. \ Question 2: Is it really greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone? \ Reply: The first premise of this argument is often misunderstood. People sometimes say: "Isn't an imaginary disease better than a real one?" Well it certainly is better—and so a greater thing—for you that the disease is not real. But that strengthens Anselm's side of the argument. Real bacteria are greater than imaginary ones, just because they have something that imaginary ones lack: real being. They have an independence, and therefore an ability to harm, that nothing can have whose existence is wholly dependent on your thought. It is this greater level of independence that makes them greater as beings. And that line of thinking does not seem elusive or farfetched. \ Question 3: But is real being just another "thought" or "concept"? Is "real being" just one more concept or characteristic (like "omniscience" or "omnipotence") that could make a difference to the kind of being God is? \ Reply: Real being does make a real difference. The question is: Does it make a conceptual difference? Critics of the argument say that it does not. They say that just because real being makes all the difference it cannot be one more quality among others. Rather it is the condition of there being something there to have any qualities at all. When the proof says that God is the greatest being that can be "thought," it means that there are various perfections or qualities that God has to a degree no creature possibly could, qualities that are supremely admirable. But to say that such a being exists is to say that there really is something which is supremely admirable. And that is not one more admirable quality among others. \ Is it greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind? Of course, incomparably greater. But the difference is not a conceptual one. And yet the argument seems to treat it as if it were—as if the believer and the nonbeliever could not share the same concept of God. Clearly they do. They disagree not about the content of this concept, but about whether the kind of being it describes really exists. And that seems beyond the power of merely conceptual analysis, as used in this argument, to answer. So question 3, we think, really does invalidate this form of the ontological argument. \ Modal Version \ Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm developed this version of the ontological argument. Both find it implicitly contained in the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion. \ 1. The expression "that being than which a greater cannot be thought" (GCB, for short) expresses a consistent concept. \ 2. GCB cannot be thought of as: a. necessarily nonexistent; or as b. contingently existing but only as c. necessarily existing. \ 3. So GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist. \ 4. But what must be so is so. \ 5. Therefore, GCB (i.e., God) exists. \ Question: Just because GCB must be thought of as existing, does that mean that GCB really exists? \ Reply: If you must think of something as existing, you cannot think of it as not existing. But then you cannot deny that GCB exists; for then you are thinking what you say cannot be thought—namely, that GCB does not exist.

When people discuss whether there is a God or not they usually build up a confrontation between religion and science. However, it is possible that science, the apparent foe of religion, can be used to prove the existence of a God. The most compelling scientific argument is the law of conservation of energy that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in forms. The important point is that energy could exist one day, having not existed the day before. Right at the beginning, something, be it a God or otherwise, must have originally created energy. The philosopher Thales of Miletus did have ideas linked to the theory of the conservation of energy as early as the 5th Century BC and modern Physcisists have developed the law. It must therefore be argued that something originally created energy and this, by one definition or another, could be considered a God.

Does a potter need to be explained by the cup he creates?

Most people, including scientists agree the universe had a beginning. And since it did have a beginning, it had a cause. For arguements sake, lets insert God as the cause. So God created the universe and all the matter within it. He created all the physical laws, gravity, maths, the complex information within the DNA double helix, etc, etc. If the universe is but a creation of His making, why should he need to be explained and or be bound by the laws in which he subjects it to. If He is its creator, he supercedes it on every level and is not bound by its bindings, but is indeed the maker of them.

The flaw with presuming that logic does not apply to God because He is not bound by the logic of his creation is absurd. An artist may produce a masterpiece on canvas but himself is not bound by what is on the canvas. And so it goes with God. He created the laws of physics to govern the universe. They were not made to govern Him.

And it may seem unusual, in terms of the physical nature of our condition to think of a higher being, who is completely outwith the understanding of what we deem as logical. But if God created the laws that govern our universe then His mind is of such greater conceptual power than we can even think possible. And the flaw in logic would be, that we can presume that our logic is on an even-keil with the one who created a masterpiece of a universe, with its intricate design and complexity of life. We cannot even make an atom let alone a living cell, of the law of gravity.