Can we be sure that there is a supreme being?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • Yes yes yes

    When you die you either go to Heaven or Hell then you will find out God knows all and loves us when you die you must believe in God and that Jesus died for us to go to Heaven all will find out and God knows and loves you because what happens when you die? Think about it is there a second life of eternity or eternal suffering

  • I think yes

    I think it is plausible and reasonable to believe in the idea of a supreme being. I myself am not a religious person nor am I an atheist I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers in my opinion is foolish. Just because there is no proof of something existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, DNA was first discovered in 1869 by Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher and wasn't until 1986 that DNA could be used to identify and convict criminals in the court of law. My point is that DNA has existed all along but it took science and technology to discover them and make them visible to the human eye. This may also apply to the concept of a supreme being and the current science and technology is not further along enough to make the existence of a supreme being visible to the naked eye. We may never live to see that day or it may never be possible to do so however we cannot completely be closed off or rule out the existence of a supreme being just because we currently have no proof at the moment.

  • Faith or reason

    Maybe what I'm asking is in questions of religious belief, can belief in God be based on reason or does it require faith? It has been argued that reason and faith are fundamentally incompatible. However, fideism does not take that viewpoint. Fideism is the view that faith is beyond reason in questions of religious belief. Faith involves, not irrationality, but trust and commitment. A few philosophers have debated this: William Clifford argued that it is always wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Belief must be derived from patient investigation and forming any belief on insufficient evidence weakens our cognitive powers. William James replied by saying it is sometimes right, even reasonable to believe something without insufficient evidence. We face what he calls a "geniune option" where we could believe either of two exclusive alternatives: "God does exist" and "God does not exist". If our intellect cannot decide, then our emotions will. And Soren Kierkegaard took a fideist position; reason cannot comprehend a phenomeon like God, therefore one requires a "leap of faith". I think God is too profound for the human intellect.

  • No absolutely not

    Well it's plainly obvious and even most christians admit that they do not know and even I (an athiest) can not say I'm 100% sure God is not there (however I would say I'm 99.9999% sure I'm right). You have to admit that God has no hard facts to back up his existence just a book from a bunch of desert dwelling simpletons. Last time I checked that's not a good argument for God.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.