Login/Sign Up




Does God Exist?
Religion

Ahmed Gamelord Shah
Nov 19, 2012
16 votes
12 debaters
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

10
There is a god.


Bernard Seremonia
Nov 22, 2012
1 convinced
Rebuttal
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO POLES

This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is: "because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will end to the earliest of Something" (cosmological argument), where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on "the consequences of infinity", and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.

A Causal Chain

New creation asserts a causal chain: If there is a new creation, therefore we can trace backward to previous cause

----- Your Objection: There is no evidence for new creation, just conservation of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Related to your objection, new creation is new conversion from one form of energy to another form energy and from the current form of energy we can trace back to something that has ability to make a new appearance of new form of energy. And if this tracing is ended at one thing, which is energy itself, this huge energy must be considered as the first cause or if we disagree with it then we must accept there is possibility to trace back to the source of energy that doesn't relate to the law of conservation energy.

And this energy as the first cause must be considered as the uncaused conscious energy, and if we disagree with it then we have to accept that human (that has consciousness) is not coming from energy (this open new perspective as a causal chain that has no relation with your objection). -----

Infinite Backward

Infinite backward asserts new creation: If an infinite backward asserts there is no creation then there will be an ended point as an uncaused cause, therefore we try another assertion to assert the consequences

----- Your objection: no logical support for infinite backward causality.

Infinite backward can be considered as our trial to push our logical to the farthest extent and see where is it going to? To make us clear that any possibilities thinking on something (even the impossible one) always assert finite backward causality. And eventually forcing any kind of thinking will lead us to conclusion to finite causality. That's one point. The second point: your statement asserts there is finite backward causality. -----

Opposite Direction of Causal Chain

Infinite backward asserts a causal chain: If infinite backward asserts new creation, then there is a causal chain at forward direction closer to current

The Intersection of The Two Opposite Directions of The Causal Chain

Backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause: The two points close together assert consequences that each of the two points must be an uncaused cause or both of the two points as uncaused causes, therefore for the last consequence if there is no one as a cause for the other then it asserts there is a creation that exist from nowhere which is an uncaused cause itself.

SYLLOGISM

- New creation (new form or new function) asserts a causal chain

- Infinite backward asserts new creation (new form or new function)

- * therefore, infinite backward asserts a causal chain, and further, backward direction and forward direction of causal chain are ended at the uncaused cause

FIXED EXISTENCE

Axiom:

Something (without additional assertions) can't transcend beyond something itself

From one liter water (without additional assertions) can't be poured as much as 1 gallon water. Meaning: All existences (without additional assertions) can not transcend beyond all existences (their self)

All Existences are Fixed (or aren't fixed):

If the number of all existences are not fixed, then, the number of all existences (without additional assertions) transcend beyond all existences (their self). It against axiom.

Therefore: The number of all existences are fixed. It asserts there is finite regression. IOW, there is an uncause caused (there is only finite backward)

The Consequence of Infinite Backward:

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, it's not because we think there is missing links and that we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as "makes sense", as classical understanding, but,

- we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere, because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as "the earliest".

 
Caleb Dixon Smith
Nov 29, 2012
1 convinced
Rebuttal
From my blog:

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest. Whether it is the most powerful or the least useful is debated, though. Last year I wrote my an article on it expressed as well as I possibly could (read that here if you haven't yet). However, further debate has shed some new light on this issue for me. While I still believe the cosmological argument is valuable, to make a case for it against the intellectual theories of many atheists requires a higher, more balanced, more critical level of analysis. So, I now present a more complex version of the cosmological argument that compares God as a first cause with other theories. I wrote this during a forum debate, so it may seem a bit off context-wise.

The main issue is that something must be an uncaused fundamental. Something must be an essential part of reality from which everything else derives its being. Based on the most common theories, there are three main candidates: our universe (by universe I refer specifically to the spacetime in which we reside, which began its current form some 13+ billion years ago), a higher level of spacetime (or something beyond spacetime) or a multiverse in which our universe exists, or a deity of some kind.

Our universe seems unlikely as the uncaused fundamental, because it seems to have had an origin. If it existed in another form before the Big Bang is pure speculation, untestable and unfalsifiable. While an oscillating universe (one which continually "bangs" and "crunches" throughout all eternity) seems conceptually possible, it raises questions about the second law of thermodynamics (does it reset on each bang?), the arrow of time, and similar ideas, which cannot even theoretically be answered. The possible advantage to this theory is it has a form of the anthropic principle built-in: the reason we as a species beat the odds and exist is because if there are infinite oscillations of the universe, each different than the last, there would inevitably be one with us. However, this could also be argued otherwise, as it is possible, if a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is valid, that the universe could be identical in every iteration. Therefore the existence of man in a finite universe (which this would essentially be; a world on repeat) seems miraculously arbitrary. Regardless, the course of history seems to be teleological, which argues against this view unless the universe is sentient, which would essentially make the universe itself a pantheistic, deistic god. And of course this entire argument hinges on the idea that the universe may have had a pre-Bang past, which is a very shaky foundation.

The possibility of our universe being a part of a higher spacetime, multiverse, or other substance which in turn is the uncaused fundamental is intriguing, but is also very speculative. However, unlike the previous view, this could in theory be verifiable if the higher spacetime had certain properties. Certain forms of higher spacetime would reveal themselves through KK (Klauza-Klein) particles or variations in gravity on small scales, and the detection of such particles or variations would all but prove there is a higher spacetime. Even so, it could not prove that the higher spacetime is an uncaused fundamental. This theory is also unfalsifiable, as there are many possible forms which could never be detected or disproved. On the plus side, it also has an anthropic principle, as in an infinite higher spacetime there could be infinite little universes, which would necessitate the existence of one with us. Unlike the view that our universe is fundamental, this doesn't have to deal with the possibility of man's existence being an arbitrary miracle, since it would simply be a probabilistic necessity. We also cannot make any statements about entropy in such a space; it may not have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics like some/all of its child universes would. Of course, this is intense speculation. The most peculiar feature of this theory is that it is functionally very similar to deism in that the fundamental spacetime/multiverse has most of the properties of a generic god, minus sentience. It is uncaused, eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent. It only lacks omniscience, which is a property theoretically unique to sentient beings. The similarities between this view and deism actually, I think, lend credence to deistic/theistic theories.

Finally, there is the possibility of a sentient deity being the uncaused fundamental. This could either be a deistic or a theistic god. Deism, it seems to me, is not functionally much different than the higher spacetime/multiverse view (which is probably why there are few professing deists today), so I will not elaborate on it. The defining element of this view is that the universe is the product of a personal choice by God. For fairness, I will give the weaknesses first. The most obvious weakness to this view is that God's personality seems arbitrary. If He is the uncaused fundamental, then He has no outside influence or explanation that affects His character. Basically, it would be as Exodus 3:14 says, "I AM WHO I AM." Nevertheless, since God is a free person, He is free to determine His own self. Since a level of seemingly arbitrary reality is present in each of these views, this is not a critical issue. Another issue is that a transcendent God could seem unfalsifiable and untestable. However, this really only applies to a deistic or generic theistic God. A specific God, such as Yahweh/Jesus, can be tested and falsified, which is an enormous advantage over the other theories. Another strength of this view is that it appeals to the teleological evidence in the universe. Fine tuned natural constants, unlikely conditions for the survival of humanity, and historical unity can be explained rather simply by intelligent choice as opposed to convoluted infinities. Occam's razor would prefer the choice of a single mind over infinite universes or infinite oscillations of one universe. It also, despite having arbitrary values, has the fewest of them. Theism only requires, at the core, sentience, omnipotence, and eternality, two of which it shares with the other theories. They each require a large number of other arbitrary values, such as physical constants and laws. Thus I would think theism is superior. It also relates better to observational evidence as to the origin of complexity. No evidence exists that specific non-random function can emerge from generic, unintelligent processes. The highest complexity we see created by natural phenomena is molecular patterns, which are not especially complex because patterns are simply repeating structures. In a theistic view, the complexity of the universe arrives from the only proven possible source of complexity, an intelligent being. In all, then, God is the most likely candidate for the uncaused fundamental which is necessary for the current state of reality.

 
Caleb Dixon Smith
Dec 04, 2012
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Aaron Fulawka Show

If God exists, nothing created Him, because part of God's definition is that He is uncreated. If God had been created, He would not be God. Basically, something has to be uncreated, and God makes more sense to be that something than the universe.

 
John Li
Nov 19, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If god dosent exist how can the world exist

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Hmm... Let me give you points of God's existence
1) Jesus - History, aside from the Bible, witness Jesus, even non Christians like Tacitus wrote something for Him. His Resurrection is also in account in History. Though as first, they believed that those people who witness Christ were just because of hallucination, it was debunked since 500 men saw Him (It is IMPOSSIBLE for 500 men to hallucinate at the same time)

2) Just like with John Li, it is impossible for us to exist without God. Big Bang theory states that a PARTICLE explosion occur before this existence of our universe, but, where would those particles come from?

Also, take note that before everything of this was NOTHING. Now, how can something exist out of nothing? Answer: Impossible. So, who will create us? God. :)

God bless you bro.



 
Karis Romanelli
Nov 24, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Okay now as a catholic i've grown up my whole life to believe that there is a God.

Which I do, the rest is all bull honkie especially the religion with its many faults.

We possibly could not have gotten to where we are with out some sort of help?

And how to do you explain situations that benefit you for the better in your life?

Luck? Coincidence?

All bull honkie!

What if there was a God that controlled your life and all the luck and coincidence was a sign from him?

It makes sense how luck and coincidence work that science could approve of.

I take it as a sign from God. . . maybe you guys don't think of the possibilities

lastly if God doesn't exist how can the world exist? Science again? They can't answer everything . . .

 
Marc Ellett
Nov 26, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Daniel Drumm Show

I believe that God exists, but cannot prove it, any more than an Atheist can prove He does not



 
Mark Howard
Nov 27, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Hmmm Interesting. Well I tend to look at things like,, words, pictures, history, and remarkable history. For example- it is hard to displace pre-supposition, what we were taught as kids, mom and apple pie and in church. But then we see the RELIGION of MAN - cause such death, destruction and contention through out the ages where Christianity, Islam, ANY type of religion has taken foot there is contention against an -Different perception. I.E: Witches, ana-baptist catchers, crusades, etc.
I am Irish. Not Celtic. There is a difference. Think about this for a moment. Before Christianity arrived in Ireland, it was against the law- Irish social custom, to be overweight, a man and a women had the SAME RIGHTS, elderly, disabled children could not be abused. There were no towns, No famine, NO kings, just irish people. A "king"(english word) actually a LEADER,(There is a difference) was chosen to lead the people in case of invasion. And this is when we start to hear about them. When the Milesians, the Celts, invaded. Then the Vikings, Normans, then the - English. Then the land grabs, the abuses murders, the rapes, the greed- all came with Christianity. BUT it was from MANs wrongs to hide behind religion for the sake of power and greed. Not that Christianity was wrong. Then we have stories about: Nephilims, Goliath s, Thor, Hercules, and then the Sumerian texts which claim we are GMO peoples made by the Annaki from planet Niburu. But then here's a catch,, an anomaly- A story exists 2000 years before Christianity arrived in Ireland about how we got our freckles and language. It seems the gaels were called to BABYLON when they were building a TOWER. and the GODS said- where you from,, heres a new language,,they were third in line, and then because it was misty in Ireland a lot- they didnt see the clouds much to remember the Gods so they waved their hand and Shazzam! we had little stars sprinkled all over us. Then we have the stone and pyramid technology questions,, Belbac, , Mayans,, Heres one- MOSES in the times when the world was FLAT- said he was shown the great expanse of the heavens and the earth and its Roundness of it? You can only see that if you were way UP. Then there are the ancient hieroglyphs of spaceships and people in little spaceships, etc. But then the unexplained,, has happened time and time again, :When God decides to be anonymous. We are to CHOOSE. We choose in love, life, Good and bad. That's what he wants us to do. Choose. If someone didn't pick you to love- it wouldn't be special. The same with choosing Gods way and to be good. If Satan can interfere and try to deceive us in every conceivable way, doesn't it seem only the obvious that it will occur also his attempt in science? Wrong Histories? deception thru TECHNOLOGY? It is possible . But then we want proof of everything. Touch, feel ,see, things of the flesh. But the things God and Christ talks about are NOT of these things. Spiritual. Internal. God and Christ WITHIN us. The spirit we are taught and feel,, is WITHIN US. and we can drive it away- by not believing and doing wrong. Maybe our perception is wrong about what we, or someone called GOD? No- I think it is correct. I think that as time has gone, interpretation and power, corruption in the church by MEN has occurred,, maybe,, the stories were- tweaked a little?? It is possible. Ive never met an atheist at sea. Maybe the religious stories are a- attempt to introduce what really happened in a way that- not yet modern man could understand. And now we sift through whats left, and search and start to put the picture together. I know by this thing that is inside of me- that there is a THING,, that I call GOD,, watching me,, (science-"Monitoring" me?) but it is. Is it through mental telapathy, is it through brain power we don't understand yet? Just like Moses might not have understood a space shuttle? I do not know yet. But there are plans, models for us to follow. And if we graduate- we will then Know. Be good. Don't steal, don't murder, etc. These are good things that all men should follow. Humane rules. And someone, something- instilled it in us. Because as we all sit here and read and right- we can feel, something- if you are good towards me,, and if you are not,, we can also feel bad from people. We also can feel the UNDECIDED> So no matter the little idiosyncrasies,, we still have either a good nature or a bad nature. We know what a bad person does,, and a good one. And we know when it is twisted. Because we have heard of the things that we have to deal with,, Mans Nature. the things that seem to make us- sin? go against the grain? there is much to contemplate. But we were taught about- George Washington? You ever meet him? See him? touch Him? Me neither. I've seen pictures and heard stories. So what makes him plausible? Julius Caesar,? John Wayne? Abraham Lincoln? Aristotle? YEATS? John F. Kennedy? William Wallace? This thing that makes us BELIEVE that these people existed. That's all I will say for now- I will return and tie it all together. This is about the things that make us doubt, believe,, contemplate, and exercise the things that make us think what we do. Excuse the hodge podge thinking process- I was writing way on the run.

 
Sevie Sagucio
Dec 27, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God exist, it all depends on your religion and belief. Atheist don't have a god. Christians have a God. It really depends on your belief.

 
+ Add Argument

6
There is no god.


Daniel Drumm
Nov 22, 2012
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I'm pretty staggered that there is no one fighting this corner. I suppose a large part of this argument is what you define 'God' to be. The spectrum of this is vast ranging from Japanese cultures which believed their emperor to literally be a god, to Deists who reduce god to something so vague and undefinable that he/she/it/they can scarcely be described as ta single entity. I would say that most people definition of god is that of a sentient, interventionist being, a creator with a particular vested interest in human affairs.

From my perspective, the idea that any of the definitions of god that lie across this spectrum is false. Here is why.

A frequently touted 'proof' that god exists: the idea that you can only trace the genesis of life, the universe and everything back so far - which is, according to the current scientific consensus, to a singularity of infinite mass which became the big bang - so therefor the being/force/thing that started it all 'MUST BE GOD'. No self-respecting, logically minded adult should be comfortable holding this view. It is a complete avoidance of the question at hand.

To acknowledge the existence of a being which is complex enough to create and adjust the laws of physics, form all the physical objects in the cosmos, create life and finally imbue it with conciseness raises just as many questions about its own genesis as it solves about ours. Any self-respecting, logically minded adult who has been properly educated in science will be able to tell you that complex things do not simply come into being (I'm ignoring the idea that god 'always was, is and shall be' as it is similarly evasive of the question at hand). The idea of something as complex as what any form of deity would have to be just 'coming into existence' requires an unsatisfactorily large leap of probability, and that's putting it very mildly. It is, scientifically speaking, much more unlikely than say, lead spontaneously turning into gold for no reason. Real study of the natural world will inevitably lead you to the revelation that improbably complex things actually come about through millions of tiny individually probably changes over vast periods of time, a process described by Richard Dawkins as 'Climbing Mount Improbable' in his book of the same name. Therefor, you can deduce that what ever that instigating force was at the start of it all was not only not complex enough to be sentient (and there for not complex enough to care about the hopes and dreams of individuals of a species that has existed for at most 1 million of the total 15 billion that is the currently estimated age of the universe) but was probably almost inperciveably simple to a human mind (a thing that has evolved during a time and in an environment where everything was already very complex), probably the main factor in why the answer to the question is so elusive. To call this inperciveably simple thing god, or a god (as will inevitably be the last refuge of those who desperately want to believe in one), in the sense that any human or culture will take it to mean is totally misleading, inappropriate and a debasement of science.

The fact is that in all likelihood science WILL one day fully and empirically explain how it all started, and just because there is a vacuum left by things that have not yet been explained or discovered, it's by no means a licence to fill that void with the supernatural. It has been the case all throughout history that organised religion has initially utterly denied discoveries of science (while also persecuting and murdering to uphold this denial) until it becomes embarrassingly obvious who is actually right. The shape of the earth, the age of the earth, the age of the cosmos and the location of the earth in it, and the genesis of complex life though evolution by natural selection are just a few examples from a seemingly endless list of things that are now empirically supported scientific FACT (as far as anything can be fact; and don't let anyone tell you different) which at the time (and still to this day, most prominently in the case of evolution) were disgracefully and violently repressed by religions across the world. It is my hope that this diluted and tenuous view of god as 'the-presser-of-the-go-button' will be refuted by science eventually, just like it has systematically and empirically refuted most, if not all other pieces nonsense born out of religion.

And if it doesn't? If the answer to the question really is outside the remit for human understanding? I feel this to be incredibly unlikely, but in such a case, at least science will never have claimed to know with full certainty whether there is or is not a god, a claim which cannot be made by the ever arrogant proponents of religion.

 
Soren Smart
Nov 24, 2012
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Karis Romanelli Show

If your evidence for God's existence is that you occasionally get lucky, the obvious question is, what about the unlucky? The majority of people for the majority of history have lived lives that were and are, to steal from Hobbes "nasty, brutish, and short." I'd like to see you make your argument to the child dying of dysentery in some remote village in the Congo. I want to hear you tell him that God must exist, because you got an A+ on your math homework.

What is it about coincidence that you find so much less believable than the idea that an invisible, all-powerful being is directing your life from behind the scenes?

This idea, that sometimes "situations benefit you" is in anyway an indication that God exists, is a non-sequitor. There is no connection between your premise and your conclusion.

Your argument is ummm... bull honkie.

 
Matthew Haugabrook
Nov 23, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
"I'm pretty staggered that there is no one fighting this corner."

For me, it's because it's an exercise in futility. Idealist arguments for god are so far removed from reality and abstract that they're impossible to counter with empirical evidence, hence the reason mentioning science never helps. It's like chasing your own tail and never catching it.

 
Soren Smart
Nov 24, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Juan Paulo Geronimo Show

For at least hundreds of thousands of years, people have been inventing religions and superstitions to explain the world around them and provide them with hope for an afterlife. Hundreds of thousands of religions have come and gone in different parts of the world, each with its devoted faithful working hard to justify their beliefs to themselves and to convince others.

Isn't it remarkable that the religion in which you believe, the current most common religion in America, 2012, happens to be the right one?

Your evidence for this claim is shabby at best. If you are willing to accept Christianity on the basis of very few select quotes from very few historians, writing over a century after the events they claimed to be recording, then why not accept other religions such as Islam? After all, there is plenty of historical evidence that many hundreds of people witnessed Muslim miracles, such as the prophet Mohammad flying on a winged horse. (Mass hallucinations are historical inaccuracy on the subject are both remarkably common.)

The second argument you make is known as the Cosmological argument, and is perhaps the most common argument for God's existence. It relies on a number of grand assumptions, such as the idea that there are only two options (this is called a "false dichotomy"): that either the universe appeared out of nothing and for absolutely no reason or cause whatsoever, scientific or supernatural (an idea of which you are correct to be suspicious), or that the Christian God created the universe (an idea of which you should be suspicious).

It would take too long to explain the physics here, but suffice to say that physicists such as Stephen Hawking have made remarkable steps in explaining the existence of the universe without resort to magic and superstition.

 
Soren Smart
Nov 24, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Juan Paulo Geronimo Show

For at least hundreds of thousands of years, people have been inventing religions and superstitions to explain the world around them and provide them with hope for an afterlife. Hundreds of thousands of religions have come and gone in different parts of the world, each with its devoted faithful working hard to justify their beliefs to themselves and to convince others.

Isn't it remarkable that the religion in which you believe, the current most common religion in America, 2012, happens to be the right one?

Your evidence for this claim is shabby at best. If you are willing to accept Christianity on the basis of very few select quotes from very few historians, writing over a century after the events they claimed to be recording, then why not accept other religions such as Islam? After all, there is plenty of historical evidence that many hundreds of people witnessed Muslim miracles, such as the prophet Mohammad flying on a winged horse. (Mass hallucinations are historical inaccuracy on the subject are both remarkably common.)

The second argument you make is known as the Cosmological argument, and is perhaps the most common argument for God's existence. It relies on a number of grand assumptions, such as the idea that there are only two options (this is called a "false dichotomy"): that either the universe appeared out of nothing and for absolutely no reason or cause whatsoever, scientific or supernatural (an idea of which you are correct to be suspicious), or that the Christian God created the universe (an idea of which you should be suspicious).

It would take too long to explain the physics here, but suffice to say that physicists such as Stephen Hawking have made remarkable steps in explaining the existence of the universe without resort to magic and superstition.

 
Daniel Drumm
Nov 27, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Marc Ellett Show

I'm pretty new to this whole debating thing, but isn't it customary to actually read someone's arguement before rebutting it with nonsense?

To say anything can be 'proven' is something scientists tend to give a wide berth. It's too absolute; the whole point of science is that it is pliable in the wake of new discovery, so there needs to always be a small amount of doubt.

I can't PROVE god doesn't exist, but to say, as a matter of degrees, that I cannot prove that claim any MORE than you can prove the opposite claim betrays a striking level of ignorance about science on your part. As my previous arguement stated at length, of all the empirical evidence we have gathered about the nature of the universe, none of it necessitates a proactive creator, let alone one who cares whether you pray/have sex before marriage/are gay/steal/wear two different fabrics at the same time etc.

So I have the entire wealth of modern science behind me and you have what? Some form or other of a book written by a bunch of (by modern standards at least) socially backwards idiots over a thousand years ago. A modern day, publicly educated 11 year old is more qualified than any of the figures in the bible to make judgements on the nature of the universe. That's not supposed to be an insult, just a comment on the progression of knowledge in our society; to say anyone from so long ago has anything to say that is applicable to modern living is insane.

So no I cannot PROVE the non-existence of god, but I sure as sh*t have more backing me up than you do.

 
Aaron Fulawka
Nov 29, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Juan Paulo Geronimo Show

To your point 2) I concur with your argument about where would the particle come from, but that also poses a reciprocal question, "where does God or 'gods' come from?" That is the refute for the intelligent design, and natural selection and evolution does prove how we have come from self-replicating bacteria to the multi-cellular beings like chimps and humans. How can God live when there was NOTHING? you contradict yourself left and right, and Jesus resurrection cannot be proven, and who says Tacitus actually lived? No one was living at that time that is living now, ergo, written texts can be warped and interpreted in the wrong way.

 
Aaron Fulawka
Nov 29, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: John Li Show

How can God exist without people to come up with the mentioned notion? What created God? You cannot create something from nothing, your one question raises two-fold replies.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world