[M:B]

Consider this:

Any proof must be based on logic. A valid proof will consist of a series of logical statements all linked together. This forms a network of statements that should not be able to be contradicted by another logical argument.

Such a proof can be seen as an absolute truth, but only as far as the capacity of truth in the human mind. If the mind is limited in its recognition of truth, then all our proofs are valid only to ourselves, as humans (These limitations could be the result of our physical composition and the interaction thereof with the environment. Something that we have no control over.). There is no proof or divine axiom that shows that humans have the potential to produce and comprehend intra- and extra-universal logic. Also, if there exists a universal truth that humans cannot perceive due to our limitations, then man can never know absolute truth and thus never reach the apex of enlightenment.

Since all religions have their foundations cast by human philosophy, the above argument overthrows the idea that any religion contains absolute truth, but it errs on the side of recognising GOD since only a GOD could have placed such limitations upon us.

[AhmedEzatAlzawalaty]

i am a muslim and  i am convinced with wut i am on

[FeLiXe]

constant thinker: in my eyes the problem is that if god creates a world where it is impossible to prove or disprove his existence, science would never know

borek: here you could say - if god weren't good, everything is bad anyway no matter what you do. so you may as well live as if he is good.
but i guess it comes down to spirituality which is again not logical

[AhmedEzatAlzawalaty]

how would any thing exist without someone who created it?
can u let a car make it self in factory?
can u put two chemicals in two separate test tubes to get a new compound?will this happen ,will the compund create it self?
in fact we didnt create the compound but we created conditions to let it be,right?
so Mr FeLiXe  i think god created every electron in the universe and every thing around and not around us proves that it has been created by a stronger power.
"God does not play dice with the universe"

[Alpha-Omega]

I am a card carrying member of American Atheists...and atheism is NOT a RELIGION.

[Borek]

how would any thing exist without someone who created it?

Simply extending your logic - who created god?

[FeLiXe]

the problem with logic is: if you use logic, you have to believe that your logic is accurate, which is again some kind of faith (at a lower level). i don't think you get out of that

and it all comes down to socrates: we know nothing

then people may believe what they feel what is correct but they should not feel better than other people who have different ideas (or "brighter" ...)

[AhmedEzatAlzawalaty]

well Mr Borek , without extending the logic because we cannot extend it here , you wanna apply the creature laws (logic) on something that we donot know its nature ?, logic (that is our laws) can not be applied to god because god is not like us  and our laws can not be applied to him simply because u know he is not kind of our nature he is something different from us
thats why we cannot ask beyond this , u can not ask who created god because u don not know wut is god
P lus i wanna say that
1- when you say "yes god created the universe ,but who created god?" thats a corrupt question because you believe that god created the universe then u say who created god making god creator and creature in the same time
2-God doesnot imply to the laws of his creatures
3-we are limited by time and place but god who created time and place is not thats why he doesnot imply to our laws
4-look at a toy that moves with u know battery or some thing , as if u say "as the toy is created by man and moves with a battery then he moves with a battery exactly like it and if i told u that he moves a lone , u say "impossible"
5-more over , god proves "Existence" but existence does not prove god like "light proves day but day does not prove light"

thanksfor let me share

[Bakegaku]

     I agree with Borek on this, as whether or not any superior power exists, he fundamental question of why there is anything is still valid.  Of course, the creation story of the Quran does tell of how a preexisting God (or Allah) created the world as it exists now.  I suppose it makes sense that God may operate on a higher level than logic or reason, but to jump to that immediately is a bit of a cop-out, in my humble opinion. 
     Although "Strong Atheists" make the assertion that there is no God, I can't say I agree with that as a conclusion.  There may be a God, but evidence of any such being has yet to come to me, thus I retain my disbelief.  First there would need to be empirical evidence for the existence of anything, thus my support of science.  If a supreme, conscious being were discovered, one would have to prove that it was the God of any given religion (Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, etc.), and then I would only follow said religion if I truly thought it was the right path, taking into relation the argument of whether a good God would send so many to hell or not.  The last requirement there, though, is outside the realm of science, for although science is the most useful tool for studying what exists, it denotes nothing of how one "should" act or how things "should" be (a fact that befuddles Social Darwinists).
     I am a "Weak Atheist."  I don't make the assertion that there are no gods, because I don't know for certain that there are no gods, but I do disbelieve in gods for there is no evidence, and the burden of proof is on the believer.  Furthermore, my philosophy is that gods should not be relevant to how one acts.  I do not believe that ultimate power like that of a god makes one inherently "good," and I believe that a foul god should not be followed.  I used to strictly associate with Buddhism, and still have a high respect for it, as it more-or-less preaches this ideal.  Now, I think there are infinite paths to what may be called "Enlightenment," with the Eight Fold Path being only one template.  Each individual chooses his or her purpose of life;  It is up to them to either be the person who lives healthily and bring happiness to those around them, or be the person who strives off the suffering of others.

[JGK]

I tend to think I may be an Adamsian

"It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds. So if every planet in the Universe has a population of zero then the entire population of the Universe must also be zero, and any people you may actually meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Douglas Adams, The Original "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" Radio Script   

[FeLiXe]

well, i know that you are not serious but even in jokes you should stick to mathematical accuracy ...
let's say we take the natural numbers and take away all odd numbers (which is even an infinite amount of numbers) and we still end up with an infinite amount of numbers. so you don't know if there is possibly an infinite amount of inhabited worlds
sorry, had too many math classes recently ...

[Vortex]

I am Cristian Orthodox

[limpet chicken]

I believe in no god but science and logic.

Not trying to be facetious, but in life, I try my best to apply logic and a scientific approach to living, to my interactions with others (hey pretty lady, fancy some covalent bonind? lets get those electrons delocalised and become aromatic... )

I don't actually chat up women like that don't worry, but I evaluate possible states, desirability of such states, and probability etc.

Worked for me so far, I cann't put blind faith into something I have zero evidence of the existence of such, as such, god, doesn't work for me, and if the god 'yahweh' of the OT/NT actally existed, and I met him, I would not worship, nor would I worship any other mainstream god if proven to exist.

They to me, all seem inscrutable, incredibly cruel, and two-faced.

I would rather die, than bend my knee to an entity, however powerful, that has ordered the wholesale killing of women, children and entire races, it would be little better than to bend and kiss the feet of bin laden, or adolf hitler, all tyrants, just on a different scale.

Although my gf is a christian, baptist I think, and I would go to church and sit through the service for her, but for the sake of love only, I would not fake worship while I was in there, for anybody, hell, not even god him/her/them/itself.

I see the search for the beginning, what came first, and what was before that, to be absolutely a fundamental part of the character and psychology of the human species, but personally, I see it colored by a scientific outlook, and as such, cannot bring myself to believe in the existence of a deity.

Although, I do not discount that there may actually BE one or more, in fact, I would be absolutely damned fascinated to meet, talk with, and study one (and if there are any dead ones hanging about, I'd love to see what made it tick )

Closest thing to a bible I have, is A.Shulgin's PIHKAL, TIHKAL and guide to simple plant isoquinolines.

[enahs]

I do not believe in god as some sort of being depicted by every religion. Let me state that. I am just playing devils advocate.

I cann't put blind faith into something I have zero evidence of the existence of such

What qualifies as evidence? The words of what others state to have witnessed is not evidence?
Have you ever seen an electron? A proton? There is evidence for it in science, but you are just taking the word of other people. So does it then really qualify as evidence? What about quarks? We see the effects of them, but has anybody ever seen one? What is evidence?


People say science is about truth, but it is not! Science is about knowledge.
If science was about truth, then even doing our simple calculations of pH for dilute concentrations we would not ignore the activity coefficient. Yes in many cases ignoring it has only a very insignificant effect, but if you were after the truth you would not ignore it.
For virtually every thing you do in science, I can show an example of how we know it is wrong; but we continue to use it because it is almost right, and it still works and leads to more knowledge.

Truth is a discussion for religion and philosophy, not science. That is my opinion anyway.

[Borek]

What qualifies as evidence? The words of what others state to have witnessed is not evidence?
Have you ever seen an electron? A proton? There is evidence for it in science, but you are just taking the word of other people. So does it then really qualify as evidence? What about quarks? We see the effects of them, but has anybody ever seen one? What is evidence?

Repeatability is a key word here. I have not seen electron nor have I performed experiment in which it is visible by myself, but given necesary resources I can repeat experiments in which it is visible (or at least somehow detectable). You can't say the same about any god.