god's existence

[strangeguy]

Many religious that believe in god wondered whats the purpose for the existence of human.
However why do they not question in there belief of god, the reason of god's existence.
If god really exist, why does it exist.
To create human?
And why does he have a need to create humans?
Thus god is like a contradiction, a paradox

[Friar Pug Rush]

If the topic of God's existence and contradictions is on the table, I'm sorry, but I just can't resist.
The most seemingly rational argument I've ever heard for reasons as to why God must exist is that the world is too complex to have come together spontaneously, despite the size (infinite?) of our universe.
Still this is a terrible argument. If our universe is so complex as to require some mega-power to create it, how can the creator not be so much more complex as to also require some magnificent creator?
IMO, the world just is. No sense giving yourself a brain wedgie over it. Much more enlightening questions to ask yourself are, What am I? What can I know? What can I do?
That said, I wasted a lot of Milwaukee's Best contemplating the existence of God, so in the hopes of sparing more of what I like to call, "The Thinking Man's Beer," from such a pointless fate, I'd like to share my findings, not that I think they'll be all that convincing, as I just moved on to other things.
Also, the following paragraph is almost entirely a digression. Feel free to ignore at will.

Questioning the existence of God is great fun, and if I might, there is some wonderful Atheist propaganda I more or less support on the matter, but the thing is, God is a Straw Man. To debate his existence assumes there is an existence to be debated.

No one has ever seen El Chupacabra and come back with irrefutable proof of him. If someone had, we would all believe in El Chupacabra. And I'm not going to debate whether El Chupacabra exists, because I don't care about some monster named, "Goatsucker," unless I'm going for comedic effect, and because the burden of evidence ultimately lies on believers who want me to believe in the goatsucker in the first place. If they can't prove it, and I have to have proof to believe it, then why should I try to disprove it? I'm happy for people with faith, just like I'm happy for people that watch Dr. Phil, read Sylvia Browne books, and subscribe to the Oprah Book Club. They've found something that makes them happy, and I don't really feel the need to rain on that parade.

Point I'm trying to make here is, questioning God's existence defeats the purpose of believing in him in the first place, which is to have a God, the ultimate provider of Certainty. Anyone who's read much philosophy, or advanced physicists for that matter, are probably not likely to believe that anything is truly Certain, even though that is, by and far, the goal of western philosophy (making rational science/philosophy, in my opinion, a religion without a god). I accept philosophy more readily than religion, like I accept mathematics more readily than magic. But it's important, especially in a religious debate, to keep in mind that all science and philosophy are, are the closest explanations we've come up with for things we've observed. Everybody thought Newton was the shiznitobangsnipsnapslappy until Einstein came along saying, "Yeah, that's great and all, you were right, we haven't found monads yet so you're probably right about that, but check this out." Doesn't mean Newtonian physics doesn't work, just means it's incomplete. Perhaps a person with doubts about their religion is similarly affected with an inability to do anything but observe his world, and make judgements based on those observations. But if you listen to anything the man said, Judge not, lest ye be judged. Too bad it's too late, eh?
The only Certainty I've seen so far is, that, almost certainly, nothing is certain.
/digression

People question their place in God's kingdom, in hopes of being better people ideally, and in hopes of better understanding something that cannot be understood in practice. For example, assume an omnipotent deity with the ability to prevent evil and claims to be good, yet does not. If our place is one in which we must suffer this evil, then we should suffer. If our place is to be obedient in the face of evil then we should obey, if our place is to prove that we, too, can prevent evil then we should prevent evil, et cetera... This means that any failings that would have been attributed to a perfect being are, in fact, the failings of the ultimately flawed and fallible man.

[strangeguy]

Well said
but i would like to make another point,
since bible is mention
most of the information in bible is not correct
however some ppl see the difference as small
and accurate
differ in about 2000 years is like
WOW
yet people think its just a slight differ
just imagine you have live for two thousand years
or is the bible a proof that the almightly lord can't do maths?
god is not a certainty
it is a cover
cover for all those uncertainty
a medium for humans to escape uncertainty
to hide their troubles
To live for forever in heaven just like in the bible,
is it a bless or a curse in the first place

[Agent Intellect]

i think Friar Rush pretty much summed up my logic on the issue. if anything thats "so complex" needs a creator, then there would need to be an infinite amount of creators. maybe you could call it occams razor, but i'd just simplify the whole thing and say that universe is the lowest common denominator. any characteristic you can attribute to God (as far as the creation of all things) can also be said about the universe.

that and burden of proof. a lot of people say that absence of proof is not a proof of absence, but i don't see people believing in every fairy tale thats ever created. if i said that the universe was created by two celestial monkeys throwing shit at each other, and that you can't prove its not, what would you use (besides simple logic, which i could argue could be said about God, too) to come to the conclusion that its not true? that theres no substantiating evidence that it is true.

i'm not going to 100% completely say that God can't exist. the way i see it, God is simply another theory, just like evolution and relativity. God is not the default. if something else doesn't add up, it can't immediately default back to "God did it", because the theory of God needs to be substantiated as much as anything else. the biggest problem, though, is that while theories like evolution are constantly gaining ground, the theory of God is constantly losing ground.

[Kumori]

I always find it amusing how most creationists attempt to prove a creator, and not their creator. If we DO say that God exists, they still have to prove it's the God of the bible :P.

[Friar Pug Rush]

god is not a certainty
it is a cover
cover for all those uncertainty
a medium for humans to escape uncertainty
to hide their troubles
I disagree. Faith is the only certainty. The only thing that can a person can be certain about IMO is what they believe in, since belief does not require reason.
Honestly, I'm jealous of people that keep their faith. It's not easy. It's like trying to stay positive when bad things keep happening to you. It's like trusting people after you've been hurt by others.
People that believe in god, believe in something. That's more than I've got going for me.
To live for forever in heaven just like in the bible,
is it a bless or a curse in the first place
One of the reasons it was easier for me to abandon my faith in God was thinking along those lines. As much as conflict and stress in my life get me down, I don't see the point of an existence in which you're guranteed happiness. I hate to compare something as important as belief, religion, or the afterlife to Southpark, but it's like Satan says, "You can't have good without evil so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Similarly, if you're never sad, if you're never conflicted, if bad things never happen to you and you have no other states of being to compare it to, then what's the point? I'd rather go to Hell and struggle forever without seeing happiness than to have it given to me for nothing.
Anyway, what it comes down to is, you can use all the ad hoc hypotheses you want to theorize God's existence, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not valid from a methodic, logical standpoint. All those hypotheses are, is someone clinging to something they believe in. Not that atheists are incapable of similar hypotheses when it comes to their own pet theories...
i'm not going to 100% completely say that God can't exist. the way i see it, God is simply another theory, just like evolution and relativity. God is not the default. if something else doesn't add up, it can't immediately default back to "God did it", because the theory of God needs to be substantiated as much as anything else. the biggest problem, though, is that while theories like evolution are constantly gaining ground, the theory of God is constantly losing ground.
The theory of God's existence has never been based on rational thought, it has been based on history and authority. As time has gone on, society has put less stock in authority and come to question it's history, and we've become able to admit (most of us, anyway) that there is little to no historical evidence for most of the books of the Bible, especially the New Testament.
That said, the theory of God is just as valid as ever before.

[Agent Intellect]

i suppose the hypothesis of God is a better way to put it. and i disagree, i don't think its just as valid as ever before, because so many of the things that were explained by the God hypothesis have been explained in other ways.

and as far as the idea of heaven goes, wouldn't heaven have to somehow be purely objective? happiness and bliss is a subjective thing. something in heaven that makes me happy might not necessarily make anyone else happy, therefore it wasn't really perfect, was it?

[Friar Pug Rush]

... i disagree, i don't think its just as valid as ever before, because so many of the things that were explained by the God hypothesis have been explained in other ways.
Examples would be more fun to debate, but I will only pick one, since I'm lazy and thinking requires effort..
The Sun does not Revolve around the Earth. This was once a theory upheld by the authority of the Catholic? church. Lots of smart people died trying to say differently, because at the time, there was no credibility in reason, the credibility was in authority. If authority changes its opinion, then authority loses credibility, since the credibility is based on the accuracy of one's predictions, in so far as that is relevant to maintaining stability. Add to this a lot of land, money, and an entrenched power structure, and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist, or astronomer for that matter, to figure out that whether or not the sun revolved around the Earth had less to do with God and more to do with power.
As far as I've seen, there has NEVER been ANY evidence to support the theory there is a god, nor is any science evidence that a god does not exist. All that science has done to the hypothesis of God's existence, is move credibility out of the hands of authority, and move it into the minds of logical thought.
God, "Exists," to those that believe in him. He is, "nonexistent," to people who do not believe. I don't think it's possible to prove anything exists through reason, and I don't think it's possible to disprove the existence of anything through experience.
However, to say that the hypothesis, "God exists," is weakened by science is grossly inaccurate; it is not the question that has changed, but the way we proof our answers.
As far as all the creationist stuff, the earth only being 22 years old or whatever, I think anyone that reads the Bible and takes it literally is learning the worst lessons he can from it. The Bible has a lot of ideas in it, that, as allegories, mythology, or metaphor are pretty damn good. Of course, you also mustn't suffer a witch to live, or whatever, but whatever.
Anyway, check this out: The Bible was written by men, inspired by God or not, translated into very languages by other men, and interpreted by others still. There is so much that MUST have been lost in the translation, that I don't see any credibility in the document, anyway. Even the Bible doesn't claim to be inviolable to the selfish interests of man, just that any man who acts in such a way will suffer for it. At least, that's my experience, admittedly limited as it is to a single fundamental christian mother and some sunday school some 17 or 18 years ago.

and as far as the idea of heaven goes, wouldn't heaven have to somehow be purely objective? happiness and bliss is a subjective thing. something in heaven that makes me happy might not necessarily make anyone else happy, therefore it wasn't really perfect, was it?
As far as I'm concerned, a being that really is an omnipotent creator of a universe shouldn't have much trouble defying logic or the rules that seem to govern our universe. If you made the laws, maintain the laws, and enforce the laws, and you decide you want them to change, who's to stop you?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is, What makes you think heaven has to be objective? Why should Heaven look the same to you as to me, when it's not on Earth, or even necessarily a physical place?

[FusionKnight]

I want to bring up a point here that in my experience is often neglected in these kinds of discussions: Science is a very good tool for measuring physical reality, but its scope ends there. Just like a yardstick is a good way to measure a person's height, but won't tell you anything about how much that person loves their spouse, science is a very good tool for the specific task of measuring physical reality, and not appropriate for anything beyond that.

There are a number of things that exist that science can't measure: love, duty, honor, sorrow, friendship, imagination, poetry, etc. I would propose that spirituality is, by its very nature, not measurable by science. Perhaps the answer is that it can't be "proved" because the whole concept of proof is rooted in a tool not appropriate for this particular job. It's a little like asking me to prove my favorite color is green; it's just not the appropriate question to ask. It doesn't mean that reason is worthless, just that it isn't the right tool to use for this question.

Science answers "what", never "why". God is ultimately a "why" question, rather than a what, and therefore requires a different form of knowledge-seeking.

As someone else said, absence of proof is not proof of absence; in a similar way, if science can't tell us about God, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just that the nature of God (if He exists) is not within the scope of science.

[Agent Intellect]

we say that anyone that takes creationism seriously is learning the worst things from the bible, but two hundred years ago, it was the accepted truth. which is what i'm trying to say. the creation of the universe in seven days is something that has been taken away from God by science finding a more accurate explanation. theres no scientific principle or evidence that directly disproves God, but the things that have been attributed to God have slowly been stripped away from him.

i've posted it before, but i'll post it again. its a quote by Richard Feynman that i've found to articulate what i'm trying to say better:


"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time--life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."




If God has no laws governing what he does, then i suppose we can't even apply simple logic to it. that creates an infinite amount of "what ifs" for God, though. with that thinking, though, either God doesn't exist so talking about it is a waste of time, or he does but nobody could possibly comprehend it, so it'd be a waste of time to discuss it with our limited intelligence. i'd be more interested to know the nature of such a being (why he has to feed his sick ego by creating people to worship him, whether he's even worthy of praise or not, or if he even actually knows we exist) then assume to understand him the way religions do.

[Vrecknidj]

As has been pointed out: teleological questions require teleological answers.

That said, the Bible shouldn't be taken as a text on history or physics. The story of Noah, for example, isn't about rain or boats or keeping species alive, it's about righteous conduct. When people confuse what the Bible is for, they get all kinds of weird results. (Similarly with other books. People do this all the time. Witness: astrology, alchemy, numerology, etc.)

There are three types of argument to try to prove God's existence. All of them will fail. (See Kant on the Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological Arguments--see Aquinas and others for a discussion of those arguments before seeing Kant's rebuttal.) Oh, and Kant was himself a Lutheran.

But, the fact that they fail don't demonstrate the nonexistence of God. After all, many things are true which cannot be proven (see Godel), and many things cannot be known (see Heisenberg). And, as Kant demonstrated, existence isn't a predicate anyway, so, it isn't something that some things have and other things lack.

Dave

[Friar Pug Rush]

we say that anyone that takes creationism seriously is learning the worst things from the bible, but two hundred years ago, it was the accepted truth. which is what i'm trying to say. the creation of the universe in seven days is something that has been taken away from God by science finding a more accurate explanation.
I can't disagree with you that, since the way people think has changed because of science, people don't believe in God the same way. What I debate, is whether these differences are really significant. What difference does it make, whether Genesis (the most wholly illogical book of the Bible, IMO), is literal truth, or that it was believed to be? What does it really MATTER, if the world was made in 7 days or over the course of hundreds of billions of years? Would a God be incapable of making a system to create a world over the course of that time? Of course not. It's a God. If there's nothing it's not capable of, then it's not a matter of argument. I don't think the point of a religion is how the world/universe was created, or why the world/universe was created. The point is how we should live, and why we should live that way. God answers those questions, in a way that science never will, and to which philosophy can only say, "Do as you will, if you can."
As someone else said, absence of proof is not proof of absence;
I really hate this quote, simply because it isn't practical or methodical, and always reminds me of WMD's, and people that should never be Presidents...
Not that my hatred for it is reasonable, because what it comes down to is, that's more or less how I feel about it(religion/philosphy, not WMDs), as is more closely expressed in the following sentences...

... in a similar way, if science can't tell us about God, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, just that the nature of God (if He exists) is not within the scope of science.
teleological questions require teleological answers.

I guess, what it really comes down to for me is, the meaning of my life is completely subjective, because I don't believe in God or a universal meaning of any sort. I believe that everyone chooses the meaning of their life (if, indeed, anyone has a choice at all), and that those meanings, while possibly based on reason, are ultimately personal choices, and to that end, equal in all ends, and therefore validity:
To spare yourself the horror and despair of living a life without a purpose.
Religion, philosophy, and any other meaning in life ultimately rests upon an assumption; that there is a God, that you Exist, there there is, in fact, a Meaning, even if it is personal choice (or self-delusion, for any nihilists out there), and the knowledge that this belief makes you happier, and makes your life easier to live.
It seems to me that the driving motivation in the conflict between theist/spiritual people and atheist/nonspiritual people (a huge generalization, I know, please bear with me) is a difference in mind set. The latter requires reason for validation, and the former is willing to assume, which is the quintessential aspect of belief.
If it works for them, and it's basis is nonfalsifiable, isn't it as valid and reasonable as anything else, other than nothing?

[FusionKnight]

It seems to me that the driving motivation in the conflict between theist/spiritual people and atheist/nonspiritual people (a huge generalization, I know, please bear with me) is a difference in mind set. The latter requires reason for validation, and the former is willing to assume, which is the quintessential aspect of belief.
If it works for them, and it's basis is nonfalsifiable, isn't it as valid and reasonable as anything else, other than nothing?

I think people sometimes forget that we all have blind faith in things. Most of what we think we know, we are simply taking on faith from whoever told us. As someone else said, I don't really know that Japan exists. I've heard about it, met people who've been there, etc. But when it comes down to it, I can't say with any certainty that it's true. I just decide to believe it's true because the alternative seems more absurd.

I think this is the core of a lot of "theist/spiritual people's" beliefs. Sure, things are uncertain and that's why we call it faith. But, like any "atheist/nonspiritual person", we can learn to feel comfortable with faith because the alternative seems even less certain.

I guess my point here is that the difference between theists and atheists has nothing to do with faith. We all "believe" rather than know most things. The difference is simply in what we've chosen to believe.

[Dissident]

That is true at a personal scale, but if we talk about Humanity then the diference becomes clearer. There are people who have been in Japan, there are people who have been on space, there are people who have seen fosils, etc. Mankind knows these things, but the same cant be said about theist beliefs.

[FusionKnight]

That is true at a personal scale, but if we talk about Humanity then the diference becomes clearer. There are people who have been in Japan, there are people who have been on space, there are people who have seen fosils, etc. Mankind knows these things, but the same cant be said about theist beliefs.

Yes, but how do you know that mankind knows these things? I'm not trying to be needlessly deconstructionist here, but the point is the same. If I can't know for certain whether Japan exists because I've never been there, and can't definitively know that those who claim to have been to Japan aren't lying, then I also cannot know with any certainty that what "humanity" knows is certain or just belief.

Everybody "believes" the information they hold to be true. Nobody can "know" anything beyond their own personal experience, and even then our perceptions can be highly subjective at times.

[Dissident]

You went back to personal scale. My point is that if you look at it from a third person point of view, its like swarm intelligence/knowledge, each person hold a part of mankinds knowledge, but all pieces exist, all the pieces can be put toghether and they will fit with each other. Theistic beliefs on the other hand dont exist as knowledge anywhere, noone knows those, as a result, the pieces dont fit.
An American scientist working on solar pannels and a Japanese scientist working on batteries can understand each others projects and developments, they can combine each others knowledge and put their pieces of the puzzle together. They even know that it will happen that way because they are both working on the base of a consistent reality. Put a christian and a budhist together and they will get nowhere, they cant complement. Why?

[FusionKnight]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there is no scale besides the personal one; there is no "third person", only ourselves and our limited experience/perception. You "believe" that there is large-scale human knowledge, but I dare you to prove it. And that is my point. It can't be proven, therefore it's "believed".

[Dissident]

It can be proven, that is the whole point, you can go to Japan and you will see that in fact it does exist. You can put physics equations to the test, and you will see that in fact they work. Knowledge about these things is possible, and as a consecuence it exists. The large scale knowledge is reality itself, its consistency within itself and with our knowledge of it.
Knowledge about religius beliefs cant be obtained, and as a consecuence it doesnt exist. Compare my belief that Newton laws can predict an object's movement (I never tested it) with the belief of someone who says that there is life after death. How can you justify beliving in something that cant be known. Where did that idea come from in the first place? One belief is not the same as the other.

Religious belief is like a check without money in the bank.

[FusionKnight]

Compare my belief that Newton laws can predict an object's movement (I never tested it) with the belief of someone who says that there is life after death. How can you justify beliving in something that cant be known. Where did that idea come from in the first place? One belief is not the same as the other.

Newton's laws can be tested by performing an experiment to see if they are true.

The existence of life after death can be tested by dying and seeing what's there.

The existence of Japan can be tested by buying a plane ticket and going there.

In all cases, until you personally test the information, your "knowledge" is actually belief, and this concept encompasses the vast majority of things we say we "know".

[Dissident]

Lets go back to square 1. Belief is belief in what somebody says. Believing in Newton laws means that I believe what Newton said. Believing in the afterlife from the bible for example means that you believe what the guy who wrote it said.

Newton could have first hand knowledge about what he said. It is possible that he made the experiments and proved it.

Was it possible for the one who wrote the bible to have first hand knowledge about what he was saying? Did he die went to heaven and then wrote about it?

There is no way the one who wrote the bible could have known that there is an afterlife, but it is possible that Newton knew that his laws worked. Again believing one is not the same as the other.
A religious believer is believing another believer in the best case, or a lier/fiction writer in the worst.

[FusionKnight]

First of all, I hope I'm not coming across as combative. I know that's an INTP tendency that's particularly strong in me, so my wife constantly reminds me. I'm enjoying our sparring, and I don't intend to harp on you or your ideas. That being said, en garde!

Newton could have first hand knowledge about what he said. It is possible that he made the experiments and proved it. Was it possible for the one who wrote the bible to have first hand knowledge about what he was saying? Did he die went to heaven and then wrote about it?

There is no way the one who wrote the bible could have known that there is an afterlife, but it is possible that Newton knew that his laws worked. Again believing one is not the same as the other.
A religious believer is believing another believer in the best case, or a lier/fiction writer in the worst.

Well, John of Patmos (the supposed author of the Book of Revelations) claimed to have done just that; i.e. been taken to heaven to see some things revealed, and come back to record them. Jesus claimed to have died, gone to hell, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven, and return to earth appearing to his disciples. Any statements he made about those things could certainly be from personal experience. Abraham and Moses both claimed to have talked to God in person, so the same applies there. The authors of the Gospels were Jesus' disciples, so much of what they wrote was eyewitness accounts. This list could go on...

Lets go back to square 1. Belief is belief in what somebody says. Believing in Newton laws means that I believe what Newton said. Believing in the afterlife from the bible for example means that you believe what the guy who wrote it said.

So even there, those who "wrote" the Bible were basing their knowledge on something personally experienced. It's our choice to believe them or not, but if we do, we call it "faith". Obviously no single human can experience everything there is to experience, so you can always find examples of things we all take "on faith", which was my original point.

[Dissident]

Haha
Dont worry man, I enjoy this too!

That was revealed to John, he suposedly saw that, it doesnt mean he literally physically ascended to heaven, I dont think that that is what it says. He was seeing the future (why would he be taken to heaven?), he is just telling the vision he had, he didnt die, and he didnt go to heaven, that is no first hand knowledge.

We dont have jesus words written by himself, they were written several years later by somebody else who cant even be 100% sure that he died and ressurected, they certainly didnt do so themselves. That is no first hand knowledge.

Anyway, there is still difference since you can prove scientific claims any day. I believe in Newton laws, I see books about it that say they work, I hear that it was used for this and that and it worked, someone tells the that he tested it and its true, I see a lot of other things that either use Newton laws as base or work with them, some of which I did test myself, etc, etc. And its there, if I feel like testing it I can do it today.
A religious claim is made about something that suposedly happened once a long long time ago, it never happened again, you cant test it, It doesnt fit with anything else we know and we cant do anything about it. The only thing we have is that persons word about things that he didnt even experience directly. You can look around and noone has knowledge of it, all there is about those claims in the whole world is belief, knowledge doesnt exist about it.

My point is that it is too simplistic to say that everyone believes in something, and that all belief is the same. Its not.

[Friar Pug Rush]

My point is that it is too simplistic to say that everyone believes in something, and that all belief is the same. Its not.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.


Newton's laws can be tested by performing an experiment to see if they are true.

The existence of life after death can be tested by dying and seeing what's there.

The existence of Japan can be tested by buying a plane ticket and going there.

In all cases, until you personally test the information, your "knowledge" is actually belief, and this concept encompasses the vast majority of things we say we "know".
I agree with this, as well. Even our own, "knowledge," is unknowable, since any observation is specific to it's circumstances, which can never be recreated in the same manner, due to the tendency of things, like time, to never stop.
Anyway, there is still difference since you can prove scientific claims any day.
Scientific claims are not proven. The theory of gravity, for example, is only a theory (unless that LHC stuff opens up some new vistas), like God's existence, that cannot be falsified. Not that any of us expect gravity to stop working... but the difference between science and belief is the former is built upon claims that can be disproved, and latter on things you must accept. Hence my sweeping, overgeneralized theory that, as it seems to be in this case, and therefore...
It seems to me that the driving motivation in the conflict between theist/spiritual people and atheist/nonspiritual people (a huge generalization, I know, please bear with me) is a difference in mind set. The latter requires reason for validation, and the former is willing to assume, which is the quintessential aspect of belief.
Thing is, the conflict is unnecessary. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion cannot disprove science.
Anyway, they're both just thought-structures anyway, one based on the need to believe, and the other on a willingness to doubt.
To compare a belief in Japan's location to that of God's existence I think is worthwhile. I've never been, and will probably never go, to Japan, but I know, without a doubt, that it does exist, because it at least exists in my mind. God, on the other hand, has came and went a great many times, so I can safely say, that at one point, there was a God, and through my tendency to doubt other people's words, I have banished him from my reality, whether or not it was ever a another reality, be that reality the physical universe, another person's mind, or some place altogether different, as per my prerogative as a reasonable, rational-minded, free thinker is to create a world that, in the end, is consistent with my experiences of observable phenomenon.
Since he is not a part of my world, it doesn't matter to me whether he is a part of any other world, and will continue not mattering until I die, at which point, instead of the redistribution of my matter and energy as they dissipate into my environment and the end of my consciousness, whatever other thing "really" happens will happen.
Even me, a, "Faithless," non-spiritual atheist, believes in a great many things, from special relativity, to the power of love. I attempt to temper these beliefs with reason, to prevent injury to myself and others, and to understand how those beliefs may affect various aspects of reality.
I think that the sciences can tell us a lot about how we apply our religion to our lives, that in cases where conflicts of belief come into play, the reasonable thing to do, is to agree to disagree, and to remain consistent with ourselves and our experience. Similarly, I feel we must temper our reason with faith, or risk losing a part of that which makes us human.
I think that religion can tell us a lot, about the way we apply our logics to the world around us, and help us keep in mind that there are those, "unexplainable," human creations, like Love, Justice, Hate, Jealousy, Altruism, Faith, Good, and Evil in the world, and since we carry them with us, and let those creations affect us, we make them a part of the reality around us. God, whether fictional or not, whether a part of my personal reality or not, is a part of the reality I share with other people, as a force that makes changes in the world through its agents, and reactions to those agents and therefore, exists.
Just like racial superiority, black holes, Samaritanism, determinism, free will, Odin, goblins, demons, nihlism, werewolves, Order, Super string theory, Zorastrianism, faeries, Chi energy, angels, Chaos, existentialism, caryatids, vampires, dryads, Quantum Mechanics, dragons, Gnostiscism, the Bogeyman, zombies, and a million other beliefs, ultimately unfounded by logic or science, that we approach with varying levels of understanding and reasonability, that I give credit for their existence, on the basis of the impact they have on the minds of individuals, and through individuals, society, and the world.