Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

The thing that makes me atheist is while the existence of supernatural beings cannot be proven or disproven, it's relatively easy to prove that the kind of god worth believing in (a concerned, morally just, interventionist deity with unlimited power to correct injustice) doesn't exist or would be contradictory to the evidence.Since God doesn't intervene in situations of extreme moral injustice (genocide, etc.), he's either uninterested, immoral, or powerless. A moral, powerful, inactive god is a hypocrite. (In our world, if somebody has the power to right a wrong and doesn't, they're held almost as accountable as the wrongdoer.) A moral, powerless god may not be a hypocrite, but if it can't do anything, what's the point?I know none of these are new criticisms, but I've never heard an explanation that didn't either refer to ineffability (which I reject) or to god being bound to some "greater" moral code that binds him to less responsibility than he binds us to. Which would be immoral.Anyway, I just can't believe in a moral, just god with the power to intervene (which is the Christian god, right? At least in my old church) because the evidence is to the contrary. And personally I don't see the point in believing in a powerless or immoral god, so I don't. Thus, I believe in no gods.

Would it? My parents occasionally intervened to prevent me from starving to death from being broke. I didn't find my free will particularly compromised.How much free will can you exercise if you're being marched off to the gas chambers? If god was really into our free will he would intervene to preserve our ability to exercise it more often.

Well, yeah, he should. Caring parents do. Concerned neighbors do. If someone had the ability and responsibility to prevent you from falling but chose not to act on it, we'd take him to court.I propose simply that we hold your god to the standard that he apparently holds us to - a position of responsibility and caring for those around us it is in our power to help.Therefore, either god is nonexistent, powerless, or amoral. I don't find any of those gods worth believing in.

I guess I don't know what you mean by that. I still don't see how god preventing unfortunate death somehow eliminates free will. You can't have any kind of will if you're dead. I believe in the transforming power of believing in something. A number of people believe in the Holy Spirit but do not show evidence of increased concern about their fellow person. A number of people who do not believe in the Holy Spirit do care for their fellow person. As far as I can tell, they're not related. But why is there a lack of god? If he's all-powerful, how could something occur without his tacit approval?The moral duty of responsibility and power is vigilance. If you have the power to do something moral, and don't, you are amoral. It's pretty simple, in my view. To hold your people to a code that you are not yourself bound to is to be a tyrant.

I think there's a middle ground, where most things are left to natural law, but god intervenes when nessicary to minimise needless human suffering. I think that god, if he existed and was interested, could make things easer on a lot of people. Suffering is one thing. Suffering unto death, for no fault of one's own, doesn't preserve free will. It'd be more like welfare.

See, it's that influence that would be testable, but we don't find any evidence for it. I guessd that's where the whole god thing breaks down for me.Sorry I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I'll stop now.

You maintain that god is male? Could you demonstrate evidence of his penis? God is clearly without sex. Therefore god is an "it". Or perhaps, "Shim." That's a great philosophy for the the man, but what about the boy? What sin did he need forgiveness for? Getting killed? But then, he's dead. "Let the dead bury their own dead", eh? In your view. In another's view, it might be total proof that mankind is locked in the cycle of karma. In yet another view, that men are just pawns for vast, incomprehensible games played by distant, uncaring gods. In my view, it's total proof that humans alone are responsible for their decisions - and that ultimately, the basis for any moral code must be judged by how it maintains the quality of life for all persons, not how many books its in or how many times its aherents say "god is on our side with this."I mean, I could just as easily say "The Human species and the immoral state of our breath is total proof of our need for the redemptive power of The Great Mint." I'm basically proving my religion by recourse to elements of my religion, which is circular.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-02-2003]

I don't find the existence of Israel particularly compelling, since it was founded by people with obvious knowledge of biblical prophecy.Do you have more? Cuz Israel doesn't really cut it for me. The problem with prophecy is that it doesn't exist in a vacumn. Often just predicting an event is enough to ensure its fulfillment. If you can only do it one person at a time, how can it be objective evidence? True, "test tube" quality evidence would be accesible to all.

If I can jump in to address this point...Mr. P's point is that since we don't use the word, it isn't there. "Usage is everything" in the sense that usage defines language - not the other way around.In particular, a large number of modern speakers and writers of English feel that the "he/his" pronouns are not gender-neutral, no matter what their etymology. You can certainly argue that it has no sexist connotation, but if a sizeable fraction of English speakers feel differently - indeed, if the majority of English speakers feel it to be so - then that's the way it is.The speakers of a language define its meanings and connotations as the speak. That's the way natural language works. If people feel that "he/his" is sexist, then it is.

This is an interesting argument. I appreciate you thinking about this and bringing these comments to me.To start with, I see at least one flaw with the idea of a non-omnipotent god. It would seem to me that moral entities of limited power tend to (perhaps paradoxically) exert their power more than those of greater power. For instance, America can't overtly exert it's will on China - but we make pretty sure that China doesn't forget that we can exert other kinds of pressure. In general, we make sure China knows we exist.So, why would a god of limited power remain so "behind-the-scenes"? It would seem to me that such a god would want to hedge his bets against his imperfect knowlege by exerting as much public influence as he could. I mean, that's assuming that god thinks the same way we do, which is of course an assumption on my part - but if god is the source of human morality it doesn't make sense to assume anything else. How could a god who wouldn't know what it was like to be human dictate human morality?Anyway, I guess my point is that I think a god of limited power would choose to show himself considerably more so as to compensate for his decreased ability to cause direct change.But it's an interesting argument. The idea of a non-omnipotent god is not one that I think a lot of believers would be comfortable considering. I think it says much in your favor that you're able to approach it with an open mind.