Putting aside all the impersonal arguments for and against the existence of a God who stands beyond nature and takes an interest in human affairs -- whether the universe betrays a *design* or not, whether the concept of God implies his existence, etc. -- the two most compelling arguments for and against his existence follow from human experience. (I'm more persuaded by the first argument, against, but if I were to be persuaded in favor of God it would be by the second argument, for):
Against: wish-fulfilment. God is just too convenient a concept. Everything difficult about a grown-up view of human life -- that it ends once and for all, that there's no giant mommy and daddy approving and taking note of what we do, that often the bad prosper while the good suffer, that we must decide for ourselves how and why to live -- all of this is answered and denied by faith in a God who grants life after death, to whom our deeds and misdeeds matter, who assures a moral order in the face of apparent cosmic indifference, and who gives us rules by which to live. Just too reassuring and, if you ask me, infantile.
For: the insufficiency of Darwin to explain the richness of human experience. I don't mean that Darwin can't explain the physical design of the human body and mind. What I mean is that, to explain morality, humor, aesthetic appreciation, and so forth under a darwinian account requires you to dismiss the reality and centrality of those spheres of existence. They're generally shrugged off as selfish genes gone awry, incidental and developmentally hypertrophied "spandrels", or elaborate (and implausible) mechanisms for surviving on the savannah. I'm still an atheist, but goodness, beauty, funniness, all the stuff that makes up human life, requires some sort of explanation that the run-of-the-mill atheist world-view has yet to offer.
Thanks for the show!
-Joe

I am atheistic, but nowhere near in the sense that many people seem to assume -- my disbelief in God or a higher power is founded in the belief that I don't think it matters, not that I have a stake in whether it's provable or significant that God exists.
Likewise, I don't side with agnostics, who seem weak-spined at best, or hard-hearted aetheists who take it upon themselves to puncture others' fantasies about their Gods.
Regards, and Merrrrrry Xmas,
Bob

I'm a natural-born unbeliever. Even as a kid I couldn't fathom how my friends could believe that stuff. It just seemed obvious that the stories about an invisible guy in the sky, and talking "serpents," and a floating, home-made menagerie were all (or at least in pertinent part) made-up. None of it held nearly as much verisimilitude for me as, say, Superman. Or Bugs Bunny. (A ratiocinating rabbit--now that's at least plausible.) As I got older, the arguments (such as they were) got more rarefied and (so it seemed to me) obfuscatory, but as the dialectic ran its course the same old conclusion persevered.
I suppose if I had to name one argument I thought was the most dispositive, I guess it would be the problem of evil.
(One time when I was ten or so I do remember desperately calling out to God when I thought I was going to get in trouble about something. [I forgot to make my bed, or something.] As it happened, well...nothing happened, and as hoped for I didn't get in trouble. I suppose someone inclined to experience the world religiously would have taken my good fortune as evidence of God's grace. But, you know, God was characteristically mute on this issue of helping me out of the fix I thought I was in, so I didn't think he should get any credit.)

A wise man once said that ?God is like a school of tiny fishes, and the human mind is like a net with a wide mesh.? Rational arguments, for and against a Supreme Being, make the dodgy assumption that human consciousness can pin down the spiritual dimension. Many theologians believe you?d have better luck nailing jello to a wall. Amongst the inexplicable in the universe, God has to be pretty close to the top.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, but what of belief in the power of reason, or of the scientific method? Are those not ultimately faith based? Yes, scientists run experiments and gather empirical proofs, but so do monks and mystics apply spiritual theory in their ?experiments? of living and practical application of universal principles. Gandhi and King, for instance, gave the teaching of turning the other cheek a spin, and many devout people seek to live their lives in harmony with what they believe to be divine inspiration.
Life is full of unprovable assumptions. I assume I am not a brain in a vat. I assume I am not a god dreaming the universe into existence. I assume that the reader of this message is also a conscious being. Faith isn?t a dirty word, it?s essential to getting on with life. If believing in God makes you a better person, more power to you, and visa versa.

I believe that "God" is the universal laws of Nature cloaked in anthropomorphic poetry: "Omnipresent" as particles and gravity. "Omniscient" as cause-and-effect, yet mysterious as chaos theory and quantum physics. "Perfectly good" as Gaia, our living planet/organism, honed by millennia of constantly evolving ecosystems. "God" is a linguistic way for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of infinite and perfect. Certainly, the human brain appears to its owners to be the best model on the market, but what a brief flicker on the screen it is thus far! Actually, a mindless, even Zen-like, oneness with the inexorable flow of combinatorially-exploded cause and effect has proved to be a far better model for survival against the irresistable forces of entropy, as well as extremely efficient at mass-reproduction--the bacteria, the insect, the toad that buries itself innertly for years until rain. Indeed, it strikes us as intelligent that the way things are is a well-designed state of affairs, because we are gifted with a delightfully keen appreciation of the lot we are dealt. I believe that it may prove to be one of our "senses" to detect beauty and harmony. I believe there is every evolutionary reason to think so, since areas that strike us as beautiful and harmonious are environments which contribute better to our physical and reproductive well-being.

God to me is a word that is nebulous, but historically has most commonly been used to gain some advantage for the person using it. This advantage may take the form of approval of one's parents, peer group, or prospective lover; or to achieve a position of power within a group. Tied up with this is a desire to experience something larger than ourselves. I think that this desire for the transcendent is embodied in our brains in some form that we have yet to unravel (e.g. spandrel). Being a 99.99999% atheist (0.00001% agnostic), if God does exist, my ability to understand God would be comparable to a chimpanzee understanding string theory - it ain't gonna happen! As Soren realized back in the 19th century, if you decide to believe, don't try to rationalize it - you can't. You simply have to take that irrational leap to the absurd and BELIEVE.

God is real. God is Light. You know when people say they die and see a light. They are not lying. That light is God. God goes beyond the rational and that is why philosophers can answer it. The only way to understand God is with God?s help. The human mind in its present human form cannot understand fully what is outside of it. It can never see the whole. Human perception that thing we use to make sense of the world outside of us is in fact flawed.
When you look at a sidewalk from where you stand to the far horizon, you see the parallel lines get closer together, when in fact you know that they are not getting closer in reality. How are you ever to explain God with a perception as flawed as that? You cannot understand God within the limits of human reason, but you can understand God?s creation nature. The closest way to understand nature is not only examining it like scientists do, but to also create with it like artists do. You have to work with the elements water, earth, fire, air, light. An example would be Leonardo Da Vinci, who not only examined the world, but tried to create with it experimenting with it to make his paintings. Try to draw a line with water! Now create shadow, form, beauty, perspective, even human grace. See how hard it is. Working with the Laws of Nature. Leonardo was a greater genius than Aristotle or Plato, because of his art. He was not only a philosopher but an artist. He also did not take his knowledge from previous philosophers but from nature, Gods work.
At one point in time, maybe outside of it, you will know that God does exist and then you will be complete. When that time comes you will not know it through reason. God goes beyond the limits of reason. When you understand that God exists you wont put much stock in human reason as before, thought human reason is very valuable. God is Beauty Supreme Knowledge and Wisdom, and Completeness. The perception of God is knowing that all else is illusion except for God, and being fully satisfied perceiving God.

I think the question of the existence of God is beside the point. I think a better question is whether believing in God makes a practical difference. There are nonbelievers who murder and believers who murder, nonbelievers who are pacifists and believers who are pacifists; happy people who are believers and unhappy people who are believers, unhappy people who are nonbelievers and happy people who are nonbelievers. It doesn't seem that belief in God makes any practical difference in one's life. If one were to say that an atheist were someone who had affirmative beliefs that God did not exist and a believer someone who had affirmative beliefs that God did exist, it seems that one could simply remain neutral in this battle by simply not adopting belief systems -- yea or nay -- if they won't practically improve one's life. If the atheist knocks on the door and says, "Hey, renounce God!" the question is, will that make a difference in my life? And if the believer knocks on the door and says, "Hey, accept God!" the question is, will that make a difference in my life? (If God exists, I might already be in sync with him before you knocked on my door; if he doesn't, adopting your belief system won't help me align with his wishes, because he is nonexistent.) Can't one simply not take sides on the question of whether God exists because it doesn't matter either way?

"You cannot petition the lord with prayer."
Jim Morrison (The Doors)
Armstrong wastes our time arguing against old socerer's recipes and desert crawler novels full of outdated metaphor and hence misunderstanding. (As in: There's more than one way to skin a cat? What?}
Zero was invented. Newton came along. Caculus is only a couple of hundred years old. These things are newer recipes. And there will be more. Gravity? Whats that? String theory, black holes, paralel universes, mandelbrot sets. There is a potential place for a god who answers prayers amongst even the current postulations of physics. A potential plus a few zillion years. Anything could happen.

I'm with Joe Scwhartz:"God" is a easy catch-all explanation,and the bulk of disbelivers,which is the bulk of society,is also weak in that it avoids criticism from religion addicts.No wonder America is so sick.
I am an "out" atheist.I admit there is much about outer space that I do not know,and I could be wrong,but it is my experience that religous types are such bullies that I prefer to know in my own mind that I will not wilt to them.If I rupture a few sick religous fantasies along the way,all the better.Real men do NOT cling to anti-sexual philosophies.

i dont know whether or not i've come to the right place to advocate my thoughts. it seems to me as though there is a meaning to life, but we chose to ignore it.
the meaning of life is to make a difference in each others life by reminding ourselves that good things dont last for anybody, but bad things will never go away... (hence we are advised to appreciate good thigns because they all come to a drastic end) it will torment those who do not deserve to be tormented... it will make the innocent suffer and give selfish people privledge... it will continue lasting until only the selfish people can make a difference and make a choice out of their own good will to save the tormented. it will never give one person a balance in life of money and happiness until everybody makes a difference. i find that there is no one person in this world who finds their life completed, they find that there is isolation between even people of their own religion or race. This is because race is not what alienates us from one another, it is our character and willingness to give. this is the meaning of life... and this is why god continues to create suffering in new lives, in hope to heal present and future wounds. all in all, god is real to those who wish to keep faith that something good will come to heal the suffering in the world.. and he is artificial to those who expect satisfication with their life without no real input.
anonymous. dopei_chicyi@hotmail.com

My contribution is in the form of a few questions.
How are your core beliefs working for you?
Are you at peace with yourself and others?
Do you have a strong sense of purpose in life?
How do your core beliefs help you achieve these things?

Great blog. We each possess a certain mass of elementary consciousness that can express a portion of original consciousness (God) that holds an extraordinary element bound by the conditions and development of its origin. This original portion cannot be separate from that which surrounds it. This fragment of original consciousness gradually extends itself and pushes that which makes it most itself to the surface of our awareness. Nothing can be done to effect this basic expanded state of fundamental consciousness if we want to consciously grasp the essence of its creation. Once we become aware of something that is original the critical point will emerge almost immediately because the threshold of our reflection brings forth in itself something explicit; and also because we are able to look clearly within the depths of our being to assess the meaning of our reflections...
Grace Of Distinction

I have for years go whene i am free to the desert for days, and come to the co comclusion. God is the universe and the univers is God.That is where we came from.

I wanted to clarify this Problem of Evil. As far as I know the problem is this: If God(i.e. an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omni-benevolent being) exists, then Evil could not exist in the world. But Evil exists in the world, therefore, God as such does not exist.
The first thing to point out is that from such an argument one can only conclude that either: god is not all powerful, not all knowing, or not all good. I am fairly certain this would rule out the belief in the conception of God most present day people have. For any God to have real meaning, the first two characteristics seem more necessary than the third, Omni-benevolence. It is here that I wish to point out a problem with the soundness of the argument from the Problem of Evil.
Recall what Socrates inquired in perhaps his greatest moment: Does God love what is Good because it is Good, or is it Good because it is loved by God? Claiming that Evil exists in the world in the manner required to support the atheist's argument is tantamount to claiming that God loves what is Good because it is Good because the only way one could identify Evil in the world is if it exists independent of God. If such were the case, whether or not God exists would be of little value. If he does, that'd be great. We could praise him as we would a parent, and then some more for his infinite wisdom and power. If he does not exist, then we still have a source of morality. However, if you accept that what is Good is Good because it is loved by God, this together with God's Omnipotence and Omniscience are sufficient to deduce that Evil does NOT exist in the world(also assuming that God always will's what he loves to be the case, i.e. that he is supremely selfish). This makes the argument from the Problem of Evil either mostly irrelevant, if God loves what is Good because it is Good, or unsound, if what is Good is what is loved by God.
Having said all that, the more specific property of God as being all loving may still in fact pose a problem. In this case however, the problem is not Evil, but pain. How can we account for birth defects, the existence of diseases, or even the mortal and thus pain stricken nature of humanity with an all loving being? Moreover, pain which results from human behavior may be excusable on the basis of God wanting humanity to have free will, but how do we explain pain which results from non-intentional entities? And, perhaps the biggest generalization of this question: Why does Conflict in any form exist? If god is all loving, then he would not create two things, one of which has the ability to conflict with the other's will or existence generally.