Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.42%
 
No 110 63.58%
 
Total:173

I myself don't believe in any god, despite being raised in a spiritist home. That's due mostly to me also being taught to seek answers in science and have scientific thinking since I was a child (I'm also very skeptical because of that). Since there's no scientific evidence for any god, I consider myself an atheist.



G O O D B O I

Around the Network

I do not believe in god. God is a creation of humans.

But in saying that... I look at ant's and wonder if they had brain capacity to talk, would they think we were gods. So do I think that in the vastness of space there could be something that could be considered god like... i.e we would be the ants and they would be the all powerful being... yes I believe that is possible, but that is still not god in the traditional sense.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

I'm Catholic, so that quickly answers that. Furthermore, I find there to be many metaphysical arguments to the existence of God. Aside from that, the necessity of hqrd proof is questionable. Many of our scientific principles stand on probable (but not absolute) hypotheses. This is of course out of necessity and usually leads to good results, but a deductive definitive hard proof of God's existence? Probably never possible. Much of people's convictions rest on them accepting revelations as valid. Which believers do, and non-believers don't.



Madword said:
I do not believe in god. God is a creation of humans.

But in saying that... I look at ant's and wonder if they had brain capacity to talk, would they think we were gods. So do I think that in the vastness of space there could be something that could be considered god like... i.e we would be the ants and they would be the all powerful being... yes I believe that is possible, but that is still not god in the traditional sense.

It'd be very different from ants, though. Ants can see us. They can perceive us as all-powerful beings (we know that we are not, so the ants' assumptions would be based on ignorance), but they know for a fact that we exist.



G O O D B O I

WolfpackN64 said:
I'm Catholic, so that quickly answers that. Furthermore, I find there to be many metaphysical arguments to the existence of God. Aside from that, the necessity of hard proof is questionable. 

For religion, sure, hard proof is not necessary at all. After all, faith is only required when you don't have proof. When you have proof, you don't need faith anymore. But for scientific knowledge, yeah, a hard proof is needed (or at least many pieces of evidence that point to a thing being the most plausible).

WolfpackN64 said:
Many of our scientific principles stand on probable (but not absolute) hypotheses.

Yeah, they start as hypotheses. Then they're tested enough times and put against enough contrary ideas for them to become theories. No scientific principles stand only on speculation without testing and experimenting. 



G O O D B O I

Around the Network

No, I don't believe in anything for which there aren't any rational indications or explanations.



LuccaCardoso1 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
I'm Catholic, so that quickly answers that. Furthermore, I find there to be many metaphysical arguments to the existence of God. Aside from that, the necessity of hard proof is questionable. 

For religion, sure, hard proof is not necessary at all. After all, faith is only required when you don't have proof. When you have proof, you don't need faith anymore. But for scientific knowledge, yeah, a hard proof is needed (or at least many pieces of evidence that point to a thing being the most plausible).

WolfpackN64 said:
Many of our scientific principles stand on probable (but not absolute) hypotheses.

Yeah, they start as hypotheses. Then they're tested enough times and put against enough contrary ideas for them to become theories. No scientific principles stand only on speculation without testing and experimenting. 

The fact that these hypotheses are tested over and over is what makes them valid. They remain however, inductive reasoning, meaning they could always be wrong (but since they have been succesful in the past, we don't have any reason to mistrust them unless we encounter aromalies). As for faith. You only technically need faith, but ideally, you still have supporting grounds for that faith (usually metaphysically).



Flilix said:
No, I don't believe in anything for which there aren't any rational indications or explanations.

Not really a good argument since there are truckloads of rational arguments that can be made in support of the existance of God (of course there is also a lot of reasoning in the other direction).



No, there's no logical reason to. Plus most (if not all) religions portray their gods as evil vicious tyrants that are anti-free will. Why would you willingly believe in something like that unless you know it exists (like North Korea, we all know that exists so not believing in it isn't an option).

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 23 August 2018

Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

No but I'm open to the possibility of a god or gods. I think it's more likely that there's higher beings/lifeforms out there that we might mistake for gods.