Does God Truly Exist...?

This is a question many people have been asking in ages.

To many people, God does not exist. Neither was he the one that created the universe nor human beings.

Many said there was no proof or empirical evidence that God exists. There is no doubt that the existence of God will remain a controversy till eternity.

Many religions try to bring forward the assertion that God lives and that he indeed created the world and all the things in it.

Some people are disillusioned about the problems on earth. Some could not accept that a supreme God exists in the midst of the travails they find themselves.

I believe that indeed God exists. Where is the empirical proof you ask? The empirical proof is my very existence.

Claiming there’s no God is futile because you can’t ascribe physical princinples to the spiritual. It is a spirit thing and the understanding lies entirely in spirit. God himself is a spirit and can only be worshipped in spirit.

1 Like

That is a subjective claim, not empirical evidence, and please do desist from incorrectly using the word proof.

Those are both strawman fallacies, since firstly atheism is not a claim, and secondly no one has tried to ascribe physical princinples to the spiritual. I’m not even sure what you mean, but I am sure it’s your assertion, and not from any atheist here.

What is a spirit thing, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any spirit?

More meaningless and unevidenced claims. What do you hope to achieve here, preaching vapid unevidenced assertions to atheists in this fashion?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

1 Like

What is spirit? Can you give objective proof of this thing called spirit?

Does this god interact with the real world in any way, for example, answer prayers, perform miracles, or talk to people?

Because if something interacts with this real world, then it can be identified, studied, even proven.

So far, studies have been performed regarding prayers and miracles, in the case of prayer poorer odds than a coin flip, and for miracles, zero evidence.

Theists have painted their god as beyond measure, but that is the same category as any fictional creature.


For those asking for “objective proof of spirits”…

The objective proof is

  1. when doctors say “he’s gone” or “stay with us” or “he’s back with us” and everyone who has been around dead or dying people know this is True!

  2. when dead, “our departed”… then when a baby is born “we say our child has arrived”

Who is departing and who is arriving? Answer: the spirit of a man

But shall Atheists ever Agree to Universal Natural Truths? Never, Nothing proving the Truth of God shall stand in their eyes, True or Not!

That is objective evidence of a person being alive or dead, it in no way indicates the presence or absence of a spirit. Other living things also go through this so do you assert that Mycoplasma genitalium (smallest known living oragnism) has a spirit?

1 Like

Nothing that is merely an assertion will be taken at face value. The death or birth of a human or any other living thing as far we can tell is a biological process with no indications of spirits during any of said events. You cannot assert that there are spirits because of these events and call it “natural truth” that is not how it works.

1 Like

Face value is Acceptable Evidence eg Cheques and Crafts are accepted on their face value. You say your name is Pamela Isley, it is accepted.


But because you guys do not have the answer, you decided to attack the evidence on ground of your knowledge of the Law of evidence.

On the other hand, you Atheists’ specially recognised status of being anti-God and the known fact that you have never accepted, Universally Accepted reasonable evidence which is against your Bias and Prejudicial Standing, as clearly proven in this site, coupled with your known capabilitirs to Lie about a Fact, disqualifies you all of you from being “ordinary reasonable persons”.

So this Proof of Truth must go to the ordinary reasonable persons alone.

Wow… Okay

First of all, cheques are not accepted at face value. They are checked for all the security features and the issuers mandate, even if it is your cheque if any of the markers have an irregularity, your cheque will be denied.

I asked you specifically if Mycoplasma genitalium has spirit since it meets your criteria, you conveniently refused to answer.

If it missed your notice I said nothing about a god nor am I antigod, if I was you’d not even need to guess.

It does not work that way. It is folly to attempt to disprove such an untestable claim (which is the god claim in here).

I will illustrate the folly of such a position.

I claim that in the heart of the sun is a sphere packed with beer and hot babes. If you cannot disprove this claim, does that mean my claim is valid?


Where do you see controversy? Do you understand the null hypothesis? You admit yourself that there is no good reason, no evidence, for this god thing you speak of. By your own definition, there is no good reason to believe in the existence of this thing you speak of. Is there anything else in existence that you treat the same way as this god thing? Anything? Just name one other thing you accept as completely true with no significant evidence available to support the claim. Even the possible existence of Alien life on other planets has more of a probability than the existence of your God claim. Seriously, where is this controversy you speak of?

You exist therefore God? Give me a break. This is a bullshit first cause argument in disguise and all first cause arguments have been thoroughly and completely debunked. You do not get to god from a first cause assertion.

No one has made that claim. ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID? You have asserted there is a God and all anyone has said is that they do not believe you. Please demonstrate this god thing you speak of. What evidence do you have for it? I have no reason at all to accept anything at all you are saying as rational, reasonable, or true. You might as well assert that blue universe creating bunnies exist. The evidence is exactly the same.

No one has ascribed physical principles to the spiritual. FUCK! The only person to bring up the “SPIRITUAL” is you. Please explain what in the fuck you are talking about. If this “spiritual” thing (I only call it a thing because I have no idea what else to call it, obviously if it has no physical properties, I can not justify calling it a thing but as we are discussing it… I am at a loss as to how to discuss it in any other way) has no physical properties, how in the fuck do you even know it is real? How many things do you know of, that have existence, and absolutely no physical properties? WTF are you on about??

First of all, why would I worship anything? You have not even defined this God thing that you are speaking of. If you are referencing that bigoted murderous asshole piece of shit in the Bible, it is not worth worshiping. Many gods human beings have created are better than that piece of shit. So, that eliminates the dipshit worship idea.

Now - “God is a Spirit.” You have not defined “God” and you have not defined 'spirit." You are using one abstraction to explain another abstraction. On top of that, if god IS spirit, you have created a tautology. It’s like saying honesty is honest because it is honest. You are just repeating bullshit. All you have said is “god is god” or “spirit is spirit.”

So what we know is that you logged in here to say that you know about something about which you can not possibly know anything about because it has no physical properties. So, in essence you are just shooting off your mouth with a bunch of unfounded bullshit assertions. I have a question for you. WHY THE FUCK BOTHER? You can either back up your claim for the idea that the god you speak of exists, or you can not. If you can, lets hear what you have to say. If you can not, stop fucking wasting everyone’s time.


I fucking knew it! I have been saying that for years and the fucking publishers keep returning my manuscripts. David! You wanna start a club? I will let you be the vice president. I elected White to be the president and then I retired. I don’t want to be a part of any club that would have me as a member. Still… IT’S A GOOD IDEA!!!

1 Like

As long as White is not the Sergeant at Arms, that rolling pin makes me nervous.

Nonsense, another bare assertion from you in the pretence it’s evidence.

Ah I see, so trains are spirits then? That has to be the dumbest piece of rhetoric you’ve posted.

Shall theists ever grasp rudimentary grammar and sentence construction?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

You, or any theist, would have to offer some shred of evidence first, and that hasn’t happened. As we can see from your vapid rhetoric here again, you don’t even know what evidence is, clearly, proof is mathematics.

Nonsense again, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Same irrational nonsense yet again, your unevidenced archaic superstition needs no counter argument, and your bare assertions are not evidence.

I have up reading the rest of that vapid verbiage, what the fuck are the random capital letters for anyway?

As for truth, that’s established with objective evidence, and despite your empty hyperbole you have yet to offer any.

Ages 0-4
Ages 5-12
Ages 13-17
Ages 18-25
Ages 26-39
Ages 40-64
Ages 65-90

Good observation.

Hmmm - you tied the previous sentence with this one by using the work “neither”.

NO demonstrable evidence of a) god b) deity “sex” as in he c) create

The universe exists. Humans exist. This is a good observation.

True! These many have asked for this standard of evidence. Others are happy “believing in faith” and then telling everyone “what they know” … :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

WOW :flushed:. Not true! Perhaps in your mind only. There may one day be demonstrable evidence for “god deity idea” - just UP UNTIL NOW there is none… since earth and humankind’s evolution.

I can’t think :thinking: of many religions that “survive and get money from people” WITHOUT this deity being of some sort… and NOT all credit said deity with “creation”… so perhaps “many” is appropriate (not all - whew)

AND some are very optimistic and quite pleased with how far humankind has come in caring for other humans and advancing medicine, foods, technology, communication (incl languages), acceptance of diversity, lower crime rates … oh man I could go on and on…

These “super dis-illusioned” people should get involved in maybe one small thing to improve the world or their local area. Even giving to a food bank, volunteering at an old folks home
OR animal shelter… oh my - there IS lots a person can do!

Actually - it’s never been demonstrably evidenced that a “supreme God exists” let alone in the midst of “travails” ; SO quite frankly NONE should “accept” this position…

However - you could say “some with faith believe a supreme god exists amongst travails” (something like that)

OH fuck! NOW your “existence” credit should be going to your dear mom and dad - the sperm and egg donor… think basic sexual reproductive education.

See that’s a faith statement. No empirical evidence for this “spirit” YOU talk about … :thinking: now there is “breath” (which is demonstrable) which lys at the root of the word “spirit”.

:notes: *there’s this little tune that popped into my head by Tinman … it’s rising in my memory :notes:

I’ve just ordered my appropriate equipment and uniform!



There is no ‘we’ in atheist.

An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods. How can I be anti something in which I do not believe.?

Nor am I anti religion in principle. However, to be fair I need to say that imo organised religion is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated in the human race. I could not care less about personal superstitions unless they get in my face. An apologist coming to an atheist forum to spout their drivel is getting in my face. After about a decade of the same nonsense ad infinitum it also becomes quite tedious,

I am an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I do not believe but make no claim to know. Consequently, I have no burden of proof, that honour belongs to you.

From your post, it’s clear you have yet to grasp the concept of empirical evidence or indeed the scientific method. Not surprising. Believers are anti reason and anti science. IE they reject empirical evidence and scientific theories as soon as they contradict dogma;

Scientists tend not to make claims of proof or truth. Unlike dogmatic belief, there are no closed questions in science.


“Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.”

“The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. “Empirical” means “based on observation or experience,” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.”

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn’t fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn’t been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. “For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,” Tanner told Live Science."

Religious beliefs are based on faith, the definition of which is “belief in things unseen”; it’s blind.

This is confirmed in John 20:29 ,where Jesus is recorded as saying:

In the King James Version of the Bible it is translated as:

“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

1 Like

Which god? There are so many to choose from.

Most likely, two thousand years ago some Norse stated “There is no doubt that the existence of Wodin, Thor, and Loki will remain a controversy till eternity”.

Time and enlightenment washes away old folk tales and reveals them as just that, old folk tales.