I don't
believe gods exist because no one has provided evidence that would stand up to the standards of the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence.
However, the complete and utter lack of real evidence that any
does god exist has led me to the logical conclusion that there are no gods.
The folks who
claim god exists have no verifiable evidence and their arguments are unreasonable..
I think he's about to make the fallacy that the scientists who confirmed these things were religious
therefore god exists.
Why else would your god warn you to not worship other gods unless those
other gods exist.
A world with a god might be better than a world without one, but if no
such god exists that's just how it is.
Why do people respond to these comments with the implication of fact that
god exists when there is no evidence to support the existence thereof?
And even more to the point,
assume god exists, did he create the cosmos out of boredom.
Even though science can not explain something, doesn't mean your right and that your
specific god exists, it just means that science can't explain it.
You don't know
if god exists, and as sad as it is, because i wanted him to exist, he does not exist.
I will accept your personal experiences as evidence that
god exists as soon as you are willing to accept my personal experiences as evidence that god doesn't exist.
What's the difference between a billboard that
says god exists and one that says god doesn't exist?
I will accept your personal experience as evidence that
god exists when you accept my personal experiences as evidence that god doesn't exist.
If you can formulate a scientifically proven experiment that proves
god exists then you can Show it to me with the noble peace prize in science for proving what no one else in the world has.