Does God Exist?

God thought their prayers were too weak... So he let their children die... (cynical)

Love is almighty... If you make a clone of love it will also be almighty...

If you put both loves in a wrestling match who would prevail? Neither, because love seeks not its own... in losing, love still wins...

Love is everywhere present because it is always there when you call upon it.

Love is all knowing because love passeth understanding.

Not that I believe in the God of the Bible but I do believe in love...

I don't believe the God of the Bible is love...

Welcome to the discussion Herald.

Faith-Healing Parents Charged With Murder After 2nd Child Dies
Read more:
http://ktla.com/2013/08/08/murder-charges-filed-against-faith-healing-parents-after-second-child-dies/#ixzz2beI7G0YP

I don't seem any more in the link that is not in the graphic...

Here is where rightly so, the Declaration of Independence trumps the religious freedom of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

RE: I can feel there is s.th. greater than us
I agree that there must be something greater than us, but 'feeling' is not an evidence (unless you are a Jedi master and rely on intuition).
Let's find some logical evidences. If we define God as the supreme intelligence in the universe, does this intelligence exist? Definitely yes, and we are one of its examples.
The Darwinists claim that everything is created by the Big Bang, but is it so? The automobile tires for example are not created by the Big Bang, but rather by our engineers, that is our intelligence. They are definitely intelligent design. The question is: is there any other intelligent design, besides our own? Is our intelligence acquired by us somehow with the time, or is it the 'software' of the previous ILFs? Are we the first (and still the best) ILF in the whole vast universe? This is ridiculous to believe that we are alone and we are the first and still the best, just because we have nothing to compare with (for now).
There is more. Look for example at the butterflies: how exactly Big Bang succeeded to paint the pattern of their wings? If these patterns are created by the intelligence of the natural selection, where is the intelligence? How exactly the 'retard' flowers succeeded to make the pattern of the butterflies?
I think that we are missing something ... essential.

I think what we are missing is understanding but this lack of understanding does not mean there is a God.

RE: ... but this does not mean there is a God
Let's start from the very beginning. Thus stated the question comprises logical fallacy of class 'Excluded Middle'.
The assumtion claims (without any evidences BTW) that the universe has two basic subjects with consciousness: our ILF and God, and there is nothing else in-between, and never have been.
The Theology claims, that the definition of God is ideal, within the extremes. If God is clever, he should be omniscient, if God is benevolent He should be merciful, if God is the 'wireless' communication of some other ILF in the universe with our ILF He should be omnipresent, if the other ILF we are communicating with is more advanced than us, it should be omnipotent, etc.
Actually, if God exists and if He has some physical manifestation, whatsoever He cannot be ideal. The ideal things cannot exist in the physical world.
Our science cannot explain what is our consciousness ... and how it works, let alone what is God.

God need not be omnipresent.
Also, if God were omniscent, knowing all outcomes,
He would then be the only one responsible for thousands of years of human misery. We would have no free will. God has no more necessity to peer into our moral outcomes than you or I have to peek at the last page of the whodunnit.

It should be noted that our entire legal system relies on the assumption of free will

RE: What do I think
But why not

But H isn't that a slight overstatement. I doubt if we'll get much more static on that account

My most abject apologies to anyone confused or whom it might offend

No but happy to discuss it with anyone

Folks often refer to God as she.
In fact, Jehovah has no human (or animal) physical characteristics, save those attributed to him by allegory: finger, eye, wing, etc.

So why the gender flap?

The Bible refers to the nation of Israel as God's wife. There are references to the 'bride of Christ'. None of these make much sense if the groom should somehow be female.

Of course, the Bible is meaningless to many. That leaves us to conclude the assignation of femininity to be a meaningless declaration

Do you think that the bible could have been written by male chauvinist?

What makes you think that?

History of religion

Could you be more specific?

RE: Also, if God were omniscient, knowing all outcomes ...
Omniscient does not mean only the outcomes, but the inference path as well (the way in which the outcomes are made). In the general case omsniscient is defined as: Having infinite or infinitely extensive knowledge on (Consise Oxford Dictionary, 6th ed. 1976).
RE: He would be the only responsible for thousands of years of human misery ...
How did you come to this conclusion (that He bears the sole responsibility for our ignorance, greed, malice, ill-will, etc.)? We are not muppets (or at least we don't have the perception of being so) ... of s.th. outside us.
BTW how can you distinguish when you have absolutely free will, and when you have manipulated will (by some suggestions, for example).
Unless we establish what our mind is ... and how can it operate outside our body (for this is the way we make sex, for example), we cannot pronounce about God ... and His omniscient nature.
RE: We would not have free will ...
So your special theory of the things claims that if I can operate my software from the terminal, it cannot execute programs automatically, on its 'free will' (actually upon case match)? This is rather interesting.

Every time I have dealt with this word in past threads, folks have used it to imply predestination, sometimes even reprobation. It makes sense to me to consider God's infinite knowledge to include cognition of the benefit to his intelligent creation to endow them with free will. This concept IMO, excludes omniscience by definition. It's not that God could not choose omniscience, its just that I would feel like a puppet if He did.

RE: My most abject apologies to anyone confused or whom it might offend
I am neither confused nor offended, but when somebody replaces generally accepted terms with unpopular ones this always introduces inconvenience in the discussion ... instead of focusing on the main theme and on the actual problems, one is dealing with the terms and their interpretation ... in our understanding of the world.
Suppose we are on an eco- seminar and I replace the formal term of pure water with the formal term of delay poison. Every time the term is used one should make a background backtrack inference that delay is acrually pure and poison is actually water and it has very different characteristics and interpretation from what it looks like on the surface.
What is the point of replacing generally accepted terms with unpopular formal ones?

What's up with feeling like a puppet neo?

RE: the omniscience
All the problems come from the definition of the term. If omniscient is defined with belief revision (probability factors) there is no way for you to feel like a puppet, or muppet or whatever.
Supose you have some habits ... to write on blogs on the net for example, and God 'knows' that most probably you will write s.th. this evening ... and you do it. This does not make you a muppet in anyway. It is only the most probable outcome, with probability above 50% and it happens. Where is the muppet manipulation?

Makes some of us think a little

Good discussion here:

http://able2know.org/topic/81517-1