• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and Belief

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
If you're God, belief isn't just important, it's essential.
Because otherwise you don't exist.
that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.”"

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.
Because gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. They are created and maintained by their followers, not vice versa.

Look at Chemosh or Moloch, for example. Where are they now? Only in encyclopedias. What could bring them back? Followers.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Do you mean a jury comprised of atheists?
I wouldn't call atheists (who decided to be atheists) or theists impartial. Impartial would be igtheists, people who never before heard of the god concept. (Technical they would also be atheists in the colloquial definition but then there could never be an impartial judge.)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I wouldn't call atheists (who decided to be atheists) or theists impartial. Impartial would be igtheists, people who never before heard of the god concept. (Technical they would also be atheists in the colloquial definition but then there could never be an impartial judge.)
No, they would not be impartial. My point was that he could only convince a jury of atheists that God does not exist.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Can you prove that? If not, it is just a belief.
I never said God exists.
I said: "God would still exist even if nobody believed He existed."
That is because belief is not what would make God exist. God would either exist or not exist.

I know "God exists" is just a belief because nobody can prove that God exists.
 
Last edited:
Top