Putting aside all the impersonal arguments for and against the existence of a God who stands beyond nature and takes an interest in human affairs -- whether the universe betrays a *design* or not, whether the concept of God implies his existence, etc. -- the two most compelling arguments for and against his existence follow from human experience. (I'm more persuaded by the first argument, against, but if I were to be persuaded in favor of God it would be by the second argument, for):
Against: wish-fulfilment. God is just too convenient a concept. Everything difficult about a grown-up view of human life -- that it ends once and for all, that there's no giant mommy and daddy approving and taking note of what we do, that often the bad prosper while the good suffer, that we must decide for ourselves how and why to live -- all of this is answered and denied by faith in a God who grants life after death, to whom our deeds and misdeeds matter, who assures a moral order in the face of apparent cosmic indifference, and who gives us rules by which to live. Just too reassuring and, if you ask me, infantile.
For: the insufficiency of Darwin to explain the richness of human experience. I don't mean that Darwin can't explain the physical design of the human body and mind. What I mean is that, to explain morality, humor, aesthetic appreciation, and so forth under a darwinian account requires you to dismiss the reality and centrality of those spheres of existence. They're generally shrugged off as selfish genes gone awry, incidental and developmentally hypertrophied "spandrels", or elaborate (and implausible) mechanisms for surviving on the savannah. I'm still an atheist, but goodness, beauty, funniness, all the stuff that makes up human life, requires some sort of explanation that the run-of-the-mill atheist world-view has yet to offer.
Thanks for the show!
-Joe

我是无神论者，但与许多人所认为的意义相距甚远——我不相信上帝或更高的力量，是因为我认为这无关紧要，而不是因为上帝的存在是否能被证明或是否重要。
Likewise, I don't side with agnostics, who seem weak-spined at best, or hard-hearted aetheists who take it upon themselves to puncture others' fantasies about their Gods.
Regards, and Merrrrrry Xmas,
Bob

我是个天生的无神论者。即使在我还是个孩子的时候，我也无法理解我的朋友们怎么会相信那些东西。很明显，关于天空中一个隐形人、会说话的“蛇”和一个漂浮的、自制的动物园的故事都是编造的(或至少是相关的部分)。对我来说，没有一个能像超人那样逼真。或兔八哥。(一只会推理的兔子——现在看来这至少是可信的。)随着我年龄的增长，这些争论(就像它们那样)变得更加稀少和(在我看来)模糊，但随着辩证法的发展，同样的旧结论仍然存在。
I suppose if I had to name one argument I thought was the most dispositive, I guess it would be the problem of evil.
(One time when I was ten or so I do remember desperately calling out to God when I thought I was going to get in trouble about something. [I forgot to make my bed, or something.] As it happened, well...nothing happened, and as hoped for I didn't get in trouble. I suppose someone inclined to experience the world religiously would have taken my good fortune as evidence of God's grace. But, you know, God was characteristically mute on this issue of helping me out of the fix I thought I was in, so I didn't think he should get any credit.)

A wise man once said that ?God is like a school of tiny fishes, and the human mind is like a net with a wide mesh.? Rational arguments, for and against a Supreme Being, make the dodgy assumption that human consciousness can pin down the spiritual dimension. Many theologians believe you?d have better luck nailing jello to a wall. Amongst the inexplicable in the universe, God has to be pretty close to the top.
Belief in God is a matter of faith, but what of belief in the power of reason, or of the scientific method? Are those not ultimately faith based? Yes, scientists run experiments and gather empirical proofs, but so do monks and mystics apply spiritual theory in their ?experiments? of living and practical application of universal principles. Gandhi and King, for instance, gave the teaching of turning the other cheek a spin, and many devout people seek to live their lives in harmony with what they believe to be divine inspiration.
Life is full of unprovable assumptions. I assume I am not a brain in a vat. I assume I am not a god dreaming the universe into existence. I assume that the reader of this message is also a conscious being. Faith isn?t a dirty word, it?s essential to getting on with life. If believing in God makes you a better person, more power to you, and visa versa.

I believe that "God" is the universal laws of Nature cloaked in anthropomorphic poetry: "Omnipresent" as particles and gravity. "Omniscient" as cause-and-effect, yet mysterious as chaos theory and quantum physics. "Perfectly good" as Gaia, our living planet/organism, honed by millennia of constantly evolving ecosystems. "God" is a linguistic way for humans to wrap their heads around the concept of infinite and perfect. Certainly, the human brain appears to its owners to be the best model on the market, but what a brief flicker on the screen it is thus far! Actually, a mindless, even Zen-like, oneness with the inexorable flow of combinatorially-exploded cause and effect has proved to be a far better model for survival against the irresistable forces of entropy, as well as extremely efficient at mass-reproduction--the bacteria, the insect, the toad that buries itself innertly for years until rain. Indeed, it strikes us as intelligent that the way things are is a well-designed state of affairs, because we are gifted with a delightfully keen appreciation of the lot we are dealt. I believe that it may prove to be one of our "senses" to detect beauty and harmony. I believe there is every evolutionary reason to think so, since areas that strike us as beautiful and harmonious are environments which contribute better to our physical and reproductive well-being.

God to me is a word that is nebulous, but historically has most commonly been used to gain some advantage for the person using it. This advantage may take the form of approval of one's parents, peer group, or prospective lover; or to achieve a position of power within a group. Tied up with this is a desire to experience something larger than ourselves. I think that this desire for the transcendent is embodied in our brains in some form that we have yet to unravel (e.g. spandrel). Being a 99.99999% atheist (0.00001% agnostic), if God does exist, my ability to understand God would be comparable to a chimpanzee understanding string theory - it ain't gonna happen! As Soren realized back in the 19th century, if you decide to believe, don't try to rationalize it - you can't. You simply have to take that irrational leap to the absurd and BELIEVE.

God is real. God is Light. You know when people say they die and see a light. They are not lying. That light is God. God goes beyond the rational and that is why philosophers can answer it. The only way to understand God is with God?s help. The human mind in its present human form cannot understand fully what is outside of it. It can never see the whole. Human perception that thing we use to make sense of the world outside of us is in fact flawed.
When you look at a sidewalk from where you stand to the far horizon, you see the parallel lines get closer together, when in fact you know that they are not getting closer in reality. How are you ever to explain God with a perception as flawed as that? You cannot understand God within the limits of human reason, but you can understand God?s creation nature. The closest way to understand nature is not only examining it like scientists do, but to also create with it like artists do. You have to work with the elements water, earth, fire, air, light. An example would be Leonardo Da Vinci, who not only examined the world, but tried to create with it experimenting with it to make his paintings. Try to draw a line with water! Now create shadow, form, beauty, perspective, even human grace. See how hard it is. Working with the Laws of Nature. Leonardo was a greater genius than Aristotle or Plato, because of his art. He was not only a philosopher but an artist. He also did not take his knowledge from previous philosophers but from nature, Gods work.
At one point in time, maybe outside of it, you will know that God does exist and then you will be complete. When that time comes you will not know it through reason. God goes beyond the limits of reason. When you understand that God exists you wont put much stock in human reason as before, thought human reason is very valuable. God is Beauty Supreme Knowledge and Wisdom, and Completeness. The perception of God is knowing that all else is illusion except for God, and being fully satisfied perceiving God.

我认为上帝是否存在的问题无关紧要。我认为更好的问题是信仰上帝是否有实际意义。有不信教的人杀人，有信教的人杀人，无信教的人是和平主义者，有信教的人是和平主义者;快乐的人是有信仰的，不快乐的人是有信仰的，不快乐的人是没有信仰的，而快乐的人是没有信仰的。信仰上帝似乎对一个人的生活没有任何实际的影响。如果有人说无神论者肯定相信上帝不存在，而信徒肯定相信上帝确实存在，似乎一个人可以在这场战斗中保持中立，只要不接受信仰体系——是或否——如果它们不能切实改善一个人的生活。如果无神论者敲门说:“嘿，放弃上帝!”问题是，这对我的生活有影响吗?如果信徒敲门说:“嘿，接受上帝吧!”问题是，这会使我的生活有所不同吗?(如果上帝存在，在你敲我的门之前，我可能已经和他同步了;如果他不这样做，接受你的信仰体系也不会帮助我符合他的愿望，因为他根本不存在。) Can't one simply not take sides on the question of whether God exists because it doesn't matter either way?

“你不能向上帝祈祷。”
Jim Morrison (The Doors)
阿姆斯特朗把我们的时间浪费在反驳古老的巫师食谱和充满过时隐喻和误解的沙漠爬行小说上。(意思是:剥猫皮的方法不止一种?什么?}
零被发明。牛顿走了过来。卡库勒斯只有几百年的历史。这些都是新的食谱。而且还会有更多。重力吗?什么?弦理论，黑洞，平行宇宙，mandelbrot集合。即使在目前的物理假设中，也有一个回应祈祷的神的潜在位置。可能再加上几十亿年。 Anything could happen.

I'm with Joe Scwhartz:"God" is a easy catch-all explanation,and the bulk of disbelivers,which is the bulk of society,is also weak in that it avoids criticism from religion addicts.No wonder America is so sick.
I am an "out" atheist.I admit there is much about outer space that I do not know,and I could be wrong,but it is my experience that religous types are such bullies that I prefer to know in my own mind that I will not wilt to them.If I rupture a few sick religous fantasies along the way,all the better.Real men do NOT cling to anti-sexual philosophies.

i dont know whether or not i've come to the right place to advocate my thoughts. it seems to me as though there is a meaning to life, but we chose to ignore it.
生命的意义在于通过提醒自己好事不会持续到任何人身上，而坏事永远不会消失，从而使彼此的生活变得不同。(因此，我们被建议感激美好的事物，因为它们都会有一个极端的结局)它会折磨那些不应该被折磨的人……它会让无辜的人受苦，给自私的人特权……这种情况会一直持续下去，直到只有自私的人才能有所作为，并出于自己的善意做出选择来拯救受折磨的人。除非每个人都有所作为，否则它永远无法在金钱和幸福之间找到平衡。我发现这个世界上没有一个人的生活是完整的，他们发现即使是自己的宗教或种族的人之间也存在隔离。这是因为使我们彼此疏远的不是种族，而是我们的性格和给予的意愿。这就是生命的意义……这就是为什么上帝继续在新生命中制造痛苦，希望治愈现在和未来的创伤。总而言之，上帝对那些希望保持信念的人是真实的，他们相信美好的事物会来治愈世界上的苦难。 and he is artificial to those who expect satisfication with their life without no real input.
anonymous.dopei_chicyi@hotmail.com

My contribution is in the form of a few questions.
How are your core beliefs working for you?
你对自己和他人都很平和吗?
Do you have a strong sense of purpose in life?
How do your core beliefs help you achieve these things?

伟大的博客。我们每个人都拥有一定数量的基本意识，这些基本意识可以表达原始意识(上帝)的一部分，而原始意识(上帝)拥有受其起源的条件和发展所约束的特殊元素。这个最初的部分不能与周围的部分分开。这个原始意识的碎片逐渐扩展自己，并将最能体现它自身的部分推到我们意识的表面。如果我们要有意识地把握基本意识创造的本质，就无法影响这种基本意识的扩展状态。一旦我们意识到某些原创的东西，临界点几乎会立即出现，因为我们反思的门槛本身带来了一些明确的东西;也因为我们能够清楚地审视自己的内心深处，评估我们反思的意义……
Grace Of Distinction

I have for years go whene i am free to the desert for days, and come to the co comclusion. God is the universe and the univers is God.That is where we came from.

我想澄清这个邪恶的问题。据我所知，问题是这样的:如果上帝(即上帝)。如果存在一个全能的、全知的、仁慈的存在)，那么邪恶就不可能存在于这个世界上。但世界上存在着邪恶，因此，上帝本身不存在。
The first thing to point out is that from such an argument one can only conclude that either: god is not all powerful, not all knowing, or not all good. I am fairly certain this would rule out the belief in the conception of God most present day people have. For any God to have real meaning, the first two characteristics seem more necessary than the third, Omni-benevolence. It is here that I wish to point out a problem with the soundness of the argument from the Problem of Evil.
Recall what Socrates inquired in perhaps his greatest moment: Does God love what is Good because it is Good, or is it Good because it is loved by God? Claiming that Evil exists in the world in the manner required to support the atheist's argument is tantamount to claiming that God loves what is Good because it is Good because the only way one could identify Evil in the world is if it exists independent of God. If such were the case, whether or not God exists would be of little value. If he does, that'd be great. We could praise him as we would a parent, and then some more for his infinite wisdom and power. If he does not exist, then we still have a source of morality. However, if you accept that what is Good is Good because it is loved by God, this together with God's Omnipotence and Omniscience are sufficient to deduce that Evil does NOT exist in the world(also assuming that God always will's what he loves to be the case, i.e. that he is supremely selfish). This makes the argument from the Problem of Evil either mostly irrelevant, if God loves what is Good because it is Good, or unsound, if what is Good is what is loved by God.
Having said all that, the more specific property of God as being all loving may still in fact pose a problem. In this case however, the problem is not Evil, but pain. How can we account for birth defects, the existence of diseases, or even the mortal and thus pain stricken nature of humanity with an all loving being? Moreover, pain which results from human behavior may be excusable on the basis of God wanting humanity to have free will, but how do we explain pain which results from non-intentional entities? And, perhaps the biggest generalization of this question: Why does Conflict in any form exist? If god is all loving, then he would not create two things, one of which has the ability to conflict with the other's will or existence generally.