Proof God does not exist

[Harlequin]

All religion is based on faith, not proof. The very acquisition of proof that there is a God would mean that the scriptures followed for thousands of years would either be incorrect or misinterpreted heavily. What makes him/her God if he could be so easily destroyed? What is God to a nonbeliever?

The Creator? Surely destroying him with barely an afterthought would be grossly irresponsible to possible consequences?

How can there be proof that something doesn't exist?

There can't. Philosophically speaking. Nor can there be any proof that anything truly exists.

 

[Neo Bahamut]

While that is technically true, you can disprove specific Gods. The more attributes you attach to a certain deity, the easier it becomes to disprove. For example, consider the Christian God. Allegedly, he is omnipotent, but there is a passage in the Bible about him being unable to stop chariots with iron wheels.

This incarnation of God cannot logically exist. It is self-defeating. As for proof that something exists, there are the whole "I think, therefore I am" & "to be is to be perceived" angles.

 

[Laro]

I think this is getting old and humans should accept that they are not all-knowing creatures of the universe and there are things our minds cannot comprehend and that spirituality is impossible to prove in material sense.

I understand those who can't believe in God, if they had lost someone close to them, or prayed for help when nothing happened etc. There are many reasons why a person may not have faith in God. That is a religious God, by the way. People who do not believe in him for such reasons are like that, not because God's material presence cannot be proven, it's because his spiritual presence cannot be proven. They do accept the fact that we are existant and that we are made of something, but they believe God is not some personal friend, just a force of power. A cold force of power that just happened to be.

Then there are those who claim there is no God because we cannot see, touch, hear, feel, or in any way prove of God's existance. Such people are not only atheists, but materialists at the same time. To bluntly say "God does not exits, never has and never will" for a mere human, who thinks he knows everything is plain hilarious.

When I ask you "What is nothing?" I expect you to either say "Wait... What? It's simply nothing." or "It's everything." In both cases, it's impossible to imagine nothing.
Imagine I showed you a white empty box, and asked you "What's inside?" you would give me a straighforward answer "Nothing.". Here's the thing, although there is nothing in the box, you can still see the box. You can SEE there is nothing, except the four courners of the box and its bottom.
God is nothing, but at the same time, it's everything. Take the atom for example, every physical matter in the universe is made out of atoms. And atom is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons... But they themselves cannot devide into smaller things, not only that, they are made of NOTHING and at the same time from EVERYTHING. Atoms are made out of some sort of power of nothing/everything that makes us see, feel etc. We can SEE emptiness because is is made out of something, or something in something that is absent.

Before I end my post, I want you to imagine and think about something.

Imagine you were deaf. The sounds that you would hear would be mute. You hear nothing. You hear emptiness. You know this, because the sounds around you cannot be heard. Being deaf, you can't even prove that sounds exist, but you know and believe they do.

What you hear is: The absent sound of the sounds around you. The sounds around you exist, but you cannot hear them. They are still existant.

It's the same idea about God. We cannot hear him, see him, touch him, feel him, smell him, taste him, and so on. Those are all physical sensations. But he is existant. Humans are physical (as well as spiritual) beings who don't have the requiered senses to feel God. We have not reached that level. But it doesn't mean that he is non-existant.
That is what we as humans must understand - that we cannot prove and know everything. Even nothing exists, because it is also everything.

 

[AddleBoy]

I think this is getting old and humans should accept that they are not all-knowing creatures of the universe and there are things our minds cannot comprehend and that spirituality is impossible to prove in material sense.

I accept that I know next to nothing about the universe, but still I do not believe in a god. Do not assume that just because a person doesn't believe in god that they are arrogant enough to believe they know everything.

For someone whose family was not religious and who was not taught a religion while growing up by his parents. Why would someone who lived his life up to this point not believing in god start believing now? Because you say so? How do I know that you're not lying or that you're not mistaken?

 

[Laro]

I accept that I know next to nothing about the universe, but still I do not believe in a god. Do not assume that just because a person doesn't believe in god that they are arrogant enough to believe they know everything.

For someone whose family was not religious and who was not taught a religion while growing up by his parents. Why would someone who lived his life up to this point not believing in god start believing now? Because you say so? How do I know that you're not lying or that you're not mistaken?

I'm not talking about a religious God. In that case, I would in no way call someone arrogant (read on my post). I am talking about an entity that created the universe, not specifically someone like Jesus. Just the power of light. That, which I believe to be existant.

I think it has little to do about the backround you grew up in. It is up to you to get interested and research. If you're just following what someone else believes in without thinking about the possibilities yourself, then does it really reflect the true belief of your soul?

What I mean is that you must ask yourself "Does God Exist?" instead of asking other people. Come up with your own theories, your own reasons. Then read what other people think, compare, reflect etc.

 

[der Astronom]

I think this is getting old and humans should accept that they are not all-knowing creatures of the universe and there are things our minds cannot comprehend and that spirituality is impossible to prove in material sense.

In that same vein, religious people should admit they are not all-knowing, and should not assert that god exists while lacking evidence. Even if you assert that god is spiritual, you have no criteria by which to determine he exists, and he exists just as much as Sephiroth, Kefka or any other Final Fantasy character exists.

Then there are those who claim there is no God because we cannot see, touch, hear, feel, or in any way prove of God's existance. Such people are not only atheists, but materialists at the same time. To bluntly say "God does not exits, never has and never will" for a mere human, who thinks he knows everything is plain hilarious.

I don't believe too many atheists make that assertion. They may assert that god probably doesn't exist, or they may believe he doesn't exist, but such assertions are not statements about knowing anything at all. Indeed, one cannot assert anything if he does not know anything. It is a default position which atheists take. If we were to speak of fairies at the bottom (I am terribly sorry to have to bring this up AGAIN, but it seems some people haven't quite grasped this concept yet) of the garden, would you say they don't exist, never have, and never will? We actually don't know if they exist, but people typically say they don't anyways. Unless there is evidence that these fairies exist, we default to a position by saying they don't exist.
But to assert the opposite, and say a god (or fairies) exist in the face of all evidence or lack thereof is ridiculous.

When I ask you "What is nothing?" I expect you to either say "Wait... What? It's simply nothing." or "It's everything." In both cases, it's impossible to imagine nothing.
Imagine I showed you a white empty box, and asked you "What's inside?" you would give me a straighforward answer "Nothing.". Here's the thing, although there is nothing in the box, you can still see the box. You can SEE there is nothing, except the four courners of the box and its bottom.

Actually, I wouldn't assert that the box is empty without having taken a look at what's inside. And the box's existence is separate from what potentially is kept inside the box. You may describe how the box looks on the inside, but that doesn't change the fact that the nothingness that you see is separate from the inside of the box. And you didn't ask the right question; you asked what was inside the box; not what I see. It's just mere sophistry.

God is nothing, but at the same time, it's everything. Take the atom for example, every physical matter in the universe is made out of atoms. And atom is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons... But they themselves cannot devide into smaller things, not only that, they are made of NOTHING and at the same time from EVERYTHING. Atoms are made out of some sort of power of nothing/everything that makes us see, feel etc. We can SEE emptiness because is is made out of something, or something in something that is absent.

"Emptiness" is a human concept defined by humans in a given context. So when you ask if something is empty, it has a particular meaning that is often understood depending on what context you are using. But to utilize a certain context, and later shift it to something entirely different and inappropriate is what sophistry is. It is logically inconsistent, and leads to invalid arguments. So when you ask about emptiness, it is implied that we are speaking of the atoms that we cannot see (air, other gases, and stuff not visible to the naked eye), but now when you say emptiness is something, and not "truly" emptiness, you have employed sophistry because you have shifted your definition of emptiness (invisible gases) to anything that contains atoms. It's absurd, and I don't see the point at all.

Before I end my post, I want you to imagine and think about something.

Imagine you were deaf. The sounds that you would hear would be mute. You hear nothing. You hear emptiness. You know this, because the sounds around you cannot be heard. Being deaf, you can't even prove that sounds exist, but you know and believe they do.

But sounds are measurable. Even if you cannot hear sounds, it doesn't mean there aren't instruments or other tools capable of measuring sound waves. You don't even have to be deaf to know that. There are certain light waves that we cannot see at all, but which other animals and other tools are capable of detecting. We can't see air, but we know it exists because there is air in a balloon and an air raft, without which, the balloon could not be inflated, and an air raft cannot be used to sail through water.

It's the same idea about God. We cannot hear him, see him, touch him, feel him, smell him, taste him, and so on. Those are all physical sensations. But he is existant. Humans are physical (as well as spiritual) beings who don't have the requiered senses to feel God. We have not reached that level. But it doesn't mean that he is non-existant.
That is what we as humans must understand - that we cannot prove and know everything. Even nothing exists, because it is also everything.

If we don't have the facilities by which to measure god, then how do you know he exists? You've just defeated your own argument by your own admittance of not being able to sense him. Just because we have no way of knowing if something exists or not doesn't mean it does exist. To assert a positive, you require evidence. Otherwise you can say just about anything you want exists, and not just god. You can say just because the fairies at the bottom of the garden can't be sensed doesn't mean they don't exist.

And just because you can't prove and know everything doesn't mean you can't determine whether or not god exists.

 

[CassinoChips]

What I mean is that you must ask yourself "Does God Exist?" instead of asking other people. Come up with your own theories, your own reasons. Then read what other people think, compare, reflect etc.

I grew up Catholic. I now verge on Atheism, but I'm open-minded to the possiblity of there being a god of some sort. For what that's worth. But the flaw I find in your statement here is that it contradicts itself. Psychologically speaking, it's much more valid to seek input from outside sources first, then accept/reject those ideas as you deem necessary. If you ascribe to a theory first, the tendency is to fall into the trap of confirmation bias, i.e. reject theories that don't jive with what you already "believe."

Here's the thing, although there is nothing in the box, you can still see the box. You can SEE there is nothing, except the four courners of the box and its bottom.

You can only see the box. Not the nothingness. You can be aware of the emptiness, the negative space, but if you remove the box, you remove the negative space. If something only "exists" in relation to the presence of something else "existing," I would make the argument that it never really "existed" to begin with. ~A does not prove the existence of A.

 

[Laro]

I admit that I don't know everything, I've just stated what I believe in. Truth to say, it's a very hard subject to debate about, and I am probably not capable of backing myself up. Yet it always comes down to your own belief. We all have reasons why or why not. Personally, I see the world as a wide, mystereus yet enchanting place. The sensations of love, despair, fear, things I can smell and touch - are all things I very much enjoy and love. I am thankful that they are existant, and I consider everything around me to be God. I want to believe in God, because it makes the world I live in to have a purpose, a reason to be existant. Looking at colourful animals, the amazing space, learning science... With all life's wonders, I just cannot imagine that all this was pure accident, and that there is no God, who created the world for us to enjoy.
I tried looking at the perspective of an atheist, and I just cannot understand them. Maybe that's why, I need to grow up mentally in order to understand both sides of the arguement. Although, why should I? Why should I even bother to debate about it? I just want to live my life as I want to, and you should live yours. I'm not tackling anyone's belief and I'm not asking them to change. We are awarded with free will, with which we can make individual decisions.
If God could be proven, then all the world's people would surely believe, but I doubt we will ever be able to "prove" God. Until then, this debate will go on forever, until we meet Him, if he exists...

 

[Rasputin]

I think this is getting old and humans should accept that they are not all-knowing creatures of the universe and there are things our minds cannot comprehend and that spirituality is impossible to prove in material sense.

It's very much possible to prove. If God exists, make him come down from the sky and show himself. If he doesn't want to do that he should give some of his prophets special powers, like the ability to instantaneously heal the sick. If this can be demonstrated in a scientific environment, it would certainly prove that some form of spirituality must exist. As we all know this has never happened yet.

Then there are those who claim there is no God because we cannot see, touch, hear, feel, or in any way prove of God's existance. Such people are not only atheists, but materialists at the same time. To bluntly say "God does not exits, never has and never will" for a mere human, who thinks he knows everything is plain hilarious.

The burden of proof remains on the believer. We might not be able to show that the whole concept of "God" is false, but we don't have to. We can, however, show that the Christian god and the Muslim god and traditional African gods and the like are all false- so until a verifiable model of what God could be like comes around, any reasonable human being should outright deny it's existence.

Imagine I showed you a white empty box, and asked you "What's inside?" you would give me a straighforward answer "Nothing.". Here's the thing, although there is nothing in the box, you can still see the box. You can SEE there is nothing, except the four courners of the box and its bottom.
God is nothing, but at the same time, it's everything. Take the atom for example, every physical matter in the universe is made out of atoms. And atom is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons... But they themselves cannot devide into smaller things, not only that, they are made of NOTHING and at the same time from EVERYTHING. Atoms are made out of some sort of power of nothing/everything that makes us see, feel etc. We can SEE emptiness because is is made out of something, or something in something that is absent.

Subatomic particles are made up of quarks, and beyond that, individual strands of energy. We know that mass is another form of energy, and we don't need a god to demonstrate this. Trying to attribute this to a mystical deity instead of acknowledging that the universe is entirely based around cold physics and laws of heat transfer is just human selfishness and naivety at work.

It's the same idea about God. We cannot hear him, see him, touch him, feel him, smell him, taste him, and so on. Those are all physical sensations. But he is existant. Humans are physical (as well as spiritual) beings who don't have the requiered senses to feel God. We have not reached that level. But it doesn't mean that he is non-existant.

You can't hear, touch, feel, smell, or taste the invisible dragon living in my garage, but would it be fair to expect you to believe it exists? Of course not. You say with absolute certainty that "he" exists, but you don't have any more evidence to back that up than someone who believes in the Easter Bunny. There just is logical reason why we should even consider that a god could exist.

In conclusion: If a god existed, it would be relatively simple to demonstrate and prove. The fact that it has never been proven shows that the whole concept is no better than a fairy tale. I would go further to say that religion is a poison on society for trying to fool us into thinking otherwise, but I suppose that's a subject for another debate.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

Another something that people will never agree about.There are those who are always going to believe, those who once believed but somehow lost it...people like me..and people who never have believed.

There is no proof one way or another.

 

[Saints&Storms]

Depends on what kind of proof it is? I mean, I can't imagine what would prove that there is no God, its sort of unquestionable to me, but i imagine that proving there is no God wouldn't do anything but destroy peoples life and comfort zones -- and at the same time possibly end wars and unnecessary deaths though honestly Humans always find reasons to start wars.

There is no proof one way or another.

Does it really affect other people to see others having faith in something unshakably? It gives a person moral standards, something to stand for and a place in the world.

 

[Sepalcure]

Lol, I imagined Him to be more of an ancient powerful being that can fuck bitches up with one quirk of the eyebrow. Like The Rock but older and more badass.


That said, let me get my seriousness on. As a race, we're always trying to approve or disapprove that which we know nothing of. You have people known respectfully as atheists that don't believe there is an omnipotent being up there, who would rather yield to the logicality of science and theories and hypotheses. Then, you have the people who believe in a myriad of faiths that all point back to the same central thing or rather entity: an omnipotent God. That said, I'm just going to say it right now: this debate will always be fought whether internally in our minds or on paper or through the power of our voices.

We are curious creatures, we're still trying to figure out just why we're here so to accurately say that some of us can know for sure that there is or is not something out there is pushing it. What's my personal opinion? That He's all around us, He's manifested in every tree, rock, blade of grass, star, and breath of air we exhale and inhale. Likewise, you're going to have people who will blatantly disagree with me and say that they believe we came from the Earth from primates and that this planet formed after an implosion of stars and meteors and other such things.

I think He exists so I can only stick to my opinion. I'm not going to say that atheists are wrong for believing what they believe because certain parts of science can be proven and disproved. I'm not going to say that I find atheists to be hedonists or heathens or whatever because that's not what I was taught in biblical school. So, if you want to believe that the sky is green as opposed to blue go for it.

In my opinion, I can't fathom swallowing the fact that the Earth just happened to pop into existence one day. We can't know for sure, our knowledge, our intelligence is (again, in my opinion) limited intentionally so we DON'T know. Hell, for all we know this omnipotent being could've put us here to dedicate our lives to racking our brains and arguing about this shit until we croak and die. How do we know for sure? Aliens could've created us, yeah, some people believe in it. I don't know so I can't say. God might've made some aliens who did make us, maybe He didn't create us directly.

I do believe that He's powerful enough to hide Himself completely from us and merge into the very worlds he fashioned. I don't think He's just in the heavens or in Hell . . . because the center of the Earth is just a bubbling mass of lava and after that there's nothing else. The heavens or the firmaments lead to space and that is infinite, we can't comprehend what's out there. That is fact, so you see I think that science is right in some aspects and wrong in others. There is a being out there, but as I said before, if you don't believe in that at all. Cool.

And for the agnostic theists out there, you'll find out when you die. Actually, we all will find out when we kick the bucket. Sadly, the people that have passed on can't tell you. Or can they? Ha, that's another topic for another time. But yeah, this debate will wage on forever. If only we really knew for sure . . . what He looks like or if He's out there or why He put us here, huh . . . if only . . .

 

[Stoic Hero]

If I found proof that God doesn't exist in a box, of course I would share it with the world.

That said, I believe in God. So, until the day comes when I find undeniable proof of his nonexistence, I will continue to believe in God. And by believe, I also mean trust, not just "I know he exists."

 

[Dee]

Does it really affect other people to see others having faith in something unshakably? It gives a person moral standards, something to stand for and a place in the world.

Not that it affects me too much personally, but yes, generally speaking; I can think of many ways in which a religious mindset can have a negative affect.

There is an obvious impact of religious influence over individuals and over society that can create both happiness and strife. It has an incredibly powerful influence on things like politics and even down to the way in which an individual lives their lives. While faith can give a person moral standards, something to stand for and a place in the world, as you said Neve, so can being an atheist or an agnostic, nihilist, existentialist and the list goes on. What really matters here is how we're going to determine what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in terms of morals and ethics.

I, myself, am an agnostic (I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of higher being; therefore, I will not say absolutely that he does or does not exist). However, I have very similar morals and ethics as well as a sense of being and standards for myself as an individual just like any Christian or Muslim, Buddhist or whatever does.

I believe that if you treat people well, you will be treated the same (although I don't expect it). I am kind, courteous, helpful (as much as I can be), respectful, and I hold myself to high standards. I don't commit any [serious] crimes other than maybe going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit. I respect life and other people's choice to live it as long as it does not negatively affect me in some way, and yet I do not worship a god.

What many religious people fail to see (not saying you do), as gathered from experience, is that non-religious folk like myself can be just as moral and ethical as someone who is. But when we have these laws and assumptions in place that are highly influenced by the minds of people who are religious, who are running this country, who believe it is the best way to function in the world under God's will, then yes, many people are affected by religion.

I'm not saying being religious is a bad thing, but there are some conflicting arguments between people who follow religion and people who don't. Individually, I don't think it's as much as a problem. When we're talking about mom and dad forcing you to go to church as a kid--well, that's not so much of a problem. When it is ruled that Creationism must be integrated into the curriculum instead of evolution (or at least offering both), that, to me, is a problem. When the idea of gay marriage is shot down because it's unethical, nontraditional or just downright a sin, that, to me, is a problem.

I know not all religious people think this way. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I find a lot more hypocrisy and contradictions within the idea of what religion is in comparison to someone who is not religious.

 

[Harlequin]

While that is technically true, you can disprove specific Gods. The more attributes you attach to a certain deity, the easier it becomes to disprove.

You can't disprove specific Gods, nor anything for that matter.

For example, consider the Christian God. Allegedly, he is omnipotent, but there is a passage in the Bible about him being unable to stop chariots with iron wheels.

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)

God forbade the people of Israel from counting their populace because if they faced overwhelming numbers many would waver. The battle would only be won with the Lord's approval.

In ancient times chariots were considered the tie breaker in armies. The kingdom that could afford chariots were likely much better trained in warfare. This too provided food for thought among lesser equiped armies.

When you go to war with your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. (Deuteronomy 20:1)

For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory. (Deateronomy 20:4)
These verses would suggest he could defeat chariots should he wish to. It would also suggest in the passage you're refering to that he chose not to saction Judah's assault on the people of the valley, perhaps based on the disposition of Judah and/or his men.

But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong. (Joshua 17:18)

That verse would suggest he could beat iron chariots should he wish to.

Of course, the entire thing could also be down to an idiosyncrasy in the English language.

If I'm tasked with shooting my mother, am issued with a gun and I say:

"I can't do this", it doesn't mean I literally can't, it means I'm unwilling to do so.

The same could easily apply to the extracts in question.

This incarnation of God cannot logically exist. It is self-defeating. As for proof that something exists, there are the whole "I think, therefore I am" & "to be is to be perceived" angles.

Which ironically enough requires faith in one's self.

What I mean is that you must ask yourself "Does God Exist?" instead of asking other people. Come up with your own theories, your own reasons. Then read what other people think, compare, reflect etc.

If only saying so would make it so. Sadly, vast swathes of the human populace still invest an overwhelming amount of faith on whether or not there is existence beyond this world in science which again, rather ironically, only operates within the realm of the natural world. If you don't want to believe it, fine, but surely stating science has proved religion wrong is illogical.

In that same vein, religious people should admit they are not all-knowing, and should not assert that god exists while lacking evidence. Even if you assert that god is spiritual, you have no criteria by which to determine he exists, and he exists just as much as Sephiroth, Kefka or any other Final Fantasy character exists.

Criteria? How about reference being the criteria?

And what do you mean by should? Are you not delivering that as fact? Should you perhaps not admit you're wrong by your own logic?

As for religious mindsets possibly having a negative effect on mankind, I'm not sure those in this thread realise how brutal Atheism can be. There is no morality in Atheism, do the maths.

 

[DarkShadow]

In my opinion you don't need proof that God exists you need faith..............That's what all religions are about aren't they?

and that's what all religions have in common..........they all have faith,wheter your muslim,christian,jewish,hindu etc...............you got faith............unless your an atheist of course.

 

[Harlequin]

you got faith............unless your an atheist of course.

Not quite, Atheism too requires faith that there is no God, for you cannot know, so you must believe there is no God. To suggest it doesn't require faith is to suggest it's the default position, which it isn't, Agnosticism is.

The point is even if we were to somehow require 'evidence' of this higher being, who's to say there isn't a being even higher than that one? It's a scenario which will forever remain hypothetical.

 

[Jacqui]

There are people out there who rely on their faith, people who live because they believe in God. Who am I to take that away from them? Just because they believe in something I don't, if I discover that it's all a load of bollocks, surely I have no right to destroy religion for the sake of being famous...or being right. I'd rather be right by myself than be right and ruin a lot of people's lives

Oh, and it reminded me of this

"The Babel fish" said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is a small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconsious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the consious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish."
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. 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 so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished 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 himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

 

[Demon]

Generally one who believes in God accepts that he is an all-powerful being. In order for the box to have a higher authority, it would have to be above God. Hence, from a non-scientific standpoint, trusting what's in the box doesn't make much sense.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

There's no proof that he doesn't exist. And on the contrary, there's no proof that he does.
I will say, however, that there are many happenings in th Bible that have been reasonably accounted for, such as the great flood and the plagues in Egypt.
Whether they were caused by a divine entity or through rare occurrences in nature, they did in fact happen. I'll elaborate:
Death of the first-born child: It could have been due to God, or it could have been due to the fact that the eldest child gets the largest rations at dinner. Maybe the food had turned bad.
Swarms of locust: Again, it could have been God's work, or maybe there was a sudden break in the ecosystem through some elegant shift in nature that caused locusts to swarm through the desert in monstrous swarms.

But the thing that gets me is this: All this happened over a short period of time. It was so dramatic, that Egypt lost their slaves,, they even found chariots at the bottom of the sea.
Still, to assume that it was all due to God is, reasonably, a little farfetched, but so is assuming that natural causes did to.

In fact, I would believe an alien came down and made these things happen before assuming that it was all due to nature, though.
I feel that it's become popular to choose between divinity and science. I don't like that, simply because it's only practical to combine them.

Saying that, I don't believe E.T. came down and helped Moses. I think it's something well beyond our comprehension in our current stage of civilization. We haven't traveled past the moon, how can we possibly know much about the universe?