I do not have faith in God, neither do I worship him or anything ridiculous like that, but I am convinced of his existence. I can falsify only the claims that are against his existence, although I'm sure I could convince somebody that God does not exist as well. I'm not all that great at sharing my proof with so many people, it seems to always come out differently than the way I want it too, but I can discuss this one-on-one with anybody who has the time and/or the mind set to converse with me. If this makes sense, let me know. If you'd like to hear more, PM me or DM me or whatever-you-call-it-now me. I will be available for about an hour tonight.

It's hard to come to conclusions quickly, but I'll see what I can do about that.
One statement people usually use to argue against God is :"He never answers my prayer." They believe that a perfect being will give them what they want, when they want it, which is kind of weird. The Bible tells us God made us for companionship, which is more of a friend to friend approach, right? Would you expect your best friend to do whatever you want because you want it? Not really. Than why should you expect that from God? Because he's perfect? That would be silly, seen as he knows exactly what you really need, not what you want.
Another thing as that we can't see, hear, smell, touch, or whatever else to prove he's around. However, we can see his creation, but most people would argue that's not enough. The only thing I can say on this is that God would explain the things science can't. Remember when that cancer patient lived when they were deemed dead by a trained doctor? Those things can easily be explained when you consider God.
Also, I've been asked why God would let people get sick if he loves us so much. There was a time where we disobeyed God, and he told us that if we did disobey, we'd get sickness, disease, death and pain. We brought this upon ourselves, it was not God's fault. Consider this, if you get yourself 1 million dollars of debt, would you walk up to your best friend and demand they pay off your debt? No, because you were to blame and what did they have to do with it? Same with God, why should we expect him to pay of our debt when we are to blame, and likely we'll all into debt again.
I may have swerved off topic, so let's continue with the big subject. To be honest, it's incredibly difficult to show that God does exist, but it's super easy to disprove why he doesn't, in fact I can pull apart every single argument against God, but to straight out prove his existence is hard when we can't observe God. I have brought two atheists (Both professors in philosophy) to believe in the existence of God, and to this day they continue to explain to other professors and doctors of philosophy the proof for God. All I can say is that I am not religious, I never will be. But I certainly am convinced of late that God exists.

Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist? — coolguy8472

No, but it's hard for some people to come to terms with "God can say no". Apparently he knows what's best for us, even when we don't. If the prayer isn't answered I would suspect that the prayer isn't what's best even though it seems that it's best for the one who is praying.

I am willing to debate anything about God, now that I am convinced of his existence. I always thoroughly enjoy debating with those who have strong, solid arguments so feel free to put something out there.

Sure! I think that it's not okay because what if that person was the guy who would save our butts in the future from who knows what? Also, as soon as it has a heartbeat it's a living creature, and whether you call it a 'fetus' or a 'baby' it's still alive. Would you kill a puppy in the womb? Then why would you kill a human baby? I say that all abortions should come to an end, at that all those supposedly unwanted children could be put up for adoption for those who are less fortunate.
Of course, some people can't have that baby because they need to work instead of being pregnant, but there are help centers for people like that. Anything else?

And the unanswered prayers of others? — DingoJones

I don't know about 'unanswered', because I've been told God can say no as well as yes.

No plan fir them? — DingoJones

There probably is, but unless you
1. 'Believe' in God
2. Ask God concerning it
3. Go where He 'leads' you
You will never find out what God has planned for you or your loved ones.

Not worthwhile people? — DingoJones

My son dies of cancer even though I prayed, no plan for him I guess? — DingoJones

Not worthwhile enough to save? — DingoJones

They definitely are! But if God exists, than heaven is a way better place than earth could ever be, so why wouldn't they want to live there? It would be a place without pain or sickness. A true paradise! Wanting them to stay healthy or at least alive on earth would be selfish, would it not? I think God takes them to heaven where they can be eternally happy and healthy, wouldn't you want that for your son instead of constant pain and the grief? The Bible says that to a certain age God doesn't hold us accountable for our choices concerning Him, so if this son has yet to be a teen, he would probably be in heaven regardless what you or he thought.

Maybe that they would receive the same kind of blessings in the future? I don't know, I don't believe in prayer so much as in God's existence so I really don't know

No, I didn't. I didn't care if it was answered or not, in fact it may have been half hearted. I was convinced of God, but not of prayer. I thought, sure, there is a God, but no, prayer isn't useful. I haven't really tried praying at all besides that, but I don't see why not God wouldn't answer it, when he answered something I didn't care about.

God works in mysterious ways, right? — DingoJones

Absolutely not. God does not make it 'mysterious' at all. In fact, he makes it plain and obvious. However, when people want to give reasons why God did this or that and they don't understand, they use the "God works in mysterious ways" to supplement their incomprehension of what happened.

To see what would happen after I was convinced of the existence of God. I thought, "Hey, I don't care if the dog dies, but if I pray will it live?" The answer to the prayer further convinced me, but I don't count prayer as a complete form of evidence. I also use the term 'believe' rather loosely, because I don't believe so much as I am convinced.

not true about the second paragraph. The dog(although it currently belongs to me) is not emotionally attached to me, neither am I to it. If it had died, I wouldn't have cared to be honest. However now that it's going to live it will serve a 45yo women for the next ten years or so.

The Bible says not to test God, so that would explain why any tests done would be negative or wrong. Deut 6:16

No, I think there was a possibility that that maybe the blood tests were wrong or that it was all a coincidence, but either way it was still answered for me. I think mostly likely it was the timing, but I think that maybe God had other plans for my dog, because I'm raising him to be a guide dog.

Well, I am a person of education, and it was difficult for me to come to terms with the existence of God. I studied the evidence, and no matter how hard I tried to disprove, I ended up proving that he does exist. Pick one of the fifty proofs from that website, and I will prove to you it's absolutely false.

I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. I prayed before the blood tests were taken, and just before the vet gave me the results. I know it seems childish, but it's what worked for me. The vet was the most surprised, couldn't wrap his head around the idea that my dog would not have to be put down and therefore I wouldn't have to pay for it.

No problem! I had it formatted to green for you as well, but unfortunately when I copied and pasted it didn't stay green.

The Special Olympics suck...waste of time and money!

Or at least, that apparently is what the Trump administration thinks.

Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos certainly feels okay with that sentiment…even though she was not able to estimate the number of kids who would be impacted by the $18,000,000 in cuts. (272,000 is the number.)

Hey…it was a worthwhile trade-off for the Trump people. The very wealthy got large tax cuts…and the kids, who don't even vote, got screwed.

Sounds like par for the course to me.

I understand that green fonts denote sarcasm in Internet postings.

Don't have font colors here...so, if it is not too much trouble, color this post GREEN!

- @Frank Apisa
What does anyone else think of this?

Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence) — Andrew4Handel

I think it should be based upon why you feel you need to harm someone, rather than if harming someone altogether is wrong. Most times people harm others for revenge or avenging someone else. If harm came to my sibling, I might feel the need to inflict harm upon the attacker. If harm came to myself, I would feel the need to defend myself. If you want something someone else has, usually as adults we ask and receive with our manners. But taking into consideration toddlers, they often will hit, bite scratch, etc. to get the toy they want. Is that wrong? Probably, but to the covetous toddler it seemed fine. However, we usually create wars this way. Someone wants land, they attack the owner of said land and claim it as their own. Then the family of the previous owner(now dead or dying) wants revenge, so they attack and kill the other guy. I'm not sure if this was helpful, but over all I think it has to do with reasons rather than if it's supposedly 'wrong' to cause harm. In the case of the toddler, one thought they were right about hitting and the other(the one who was harmed) thought them wrong.

The background story for chocolate eggs were supposed to symbolize two things:
1. The chocolate eggs were usually hollow, representing that when Jesus 'rose' from the grave, the tomb was empty. (However they don't always make them hollow anymore, but that's why they were hollow to begin with)
2. When Jesus 'rose', it was also described as a rebirth. An egg is a symbol of birth, and is often used to represent that Jesus 'rose', but also that he was supposedly born again.
Anything else(Like rabbits, chicks, flowers, etc.) was a sign of spring, and everyone knows that spring is also a form of 'rebirth' as Jesus was 'reborn'. How the Easter bunny came along, that's a different story. I'd be willing to share with you all if you want.

Isn't the rest of our lives based on popular opinion? It is based on logic in the sense that everyone else uses it that way, is one person's opinion going to change it? Absolutely not. Yes it reports word usage, but is it not us, as humans, who dictate what is and isn't considered to be the 'right way' to use those words?

I looked at a map and from what I can tell Canada is only a couple of inches from where I live. — Hanover

Haha, I think you forgot to consider the scale first.

Yes, I see that putting too many people in that was not exactly reasonable, but I wanted to get the message out.

No I wasn't, I can see that now. Why I put every one together was so that you could see what my final conclusion was concerning this post. I am now convinced that either 1. The dictionary had a typo
or 2. Faith is miscommunicated sometimes.

The dictionary describes faith in two senses.
Faith
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"

-a strongly held belief or theory.
"An Atheists faith"
I copied and pasted this directly from an online version of Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
I said what I said based on this entry. If you care to disprove the dictionary, which is based on logic, go ahead. But you all put faith in your houses that they aren't going to fall over and crush you, because your house has never failed you before. You completely trust your house, therefore you have faith in it. You don't necessarily have faith in the second sense, but you definitely do have it in the first.

Only problem with that, is that I live in Canada so I am:
1. Too far away
2. Underage in your country
Otherwise I'd be happy to join you:)

Thank-you, and yes. My opinion, however, is that they are great only for what they have done for us as a society, but the questions I had to answer revolved more on the 'Why this is artistic' or 'This is good writing/painting because...'(The author/writer is gifted in talented work, they had good taste, along these lines) Perhaps these people are not talented, yet their work reflects us as human beings?

You have a point, but throughout grade school I was asked questions in history and social studies concerning these great 'teachers'. Writing out my own opinion in those tests would have resulted in low marks, and I prided myself in being a straight A student. So I was 'forced' (I use this term loosely) to agree with a so called 'standard' that was set a couple hundred years ago.

I use this forum to see what people believe matters to them, and to express my own views and opinions. Philosophy is currently my interest, and I love it because it's open, open discussion, open minded people, and open opinions. So what's your answers?

This is simply food for thought, although reading your answers may be preferable by some.

I agree, we are definitely forced to agree with the supposedly 'intelligent' opinions of those in the arts. Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. Why should the Mona Lisa still be considered something important in our history, when learning about the now(Current times) is possibly more fruitful? And who deemed those paintings and stories as 'the greats'? If we ran a poll, would the world still prefer old vs new or historical vs modern?

You have certainly thought this through! I love how neutral you are, that you are not for nor against those who choose to commit suicide. I think when someone chooses to end their life it's only sad to those that loved that person, although I think that if we still have the ability to think after death, that the suicidal person may come to regret their decision after time. But this is dependent of an 'if' which is not definite. Suicide is a touchy subject on the basis that it is usually viewed as 'bad' (as you stated) but that does not necessarily mean it is. Most suicides are committed by people who believe they have no other choice.(once again, as you stated)

Sure, you would have to be convinced first, but you believe that other people have religion, do you not? — OpinionsMatter
Yes. But I am not other people. I have higher standards. — S

'Higher standards'? You make it sound like their belief is lesser, or that it isn't as meaningful as your own. Do you believe that they have 'lower standards' by believing in something that may or may not have less stability than your own?

I simply cannot believe if I am unconvinced, even if I would be much better off as a result. I can't just flip a switch. — S

And what convinces you of things? Sure, you would have to be convinced first, but you believe that other people have religion, do you not? Are you convinced that people believe in something that could be either true or false? What convinces you that red is red and green is green, or that apple is opposite to orange? Questions to ponder.

Very true, but suppose we all made the rules, as a vote of majority from the citizens themselves? Then instead of an overall power figure assuming what is best of all, we get the results in whole? As in 60% of people agree we shouldn't have to follow building codes, so because of that we don't follow them altogether? Even the 40% who thinks we should have building codes would have to follow along, because majority rules? Even still, we would have a an authority in the leading group, would we not?

Thank-you for all sharing your opinions, they matter so much! My thought would be religion, but I'm slightly hesitant between the two(Religion and Atheism). Religion has many benefits, but believing possibly false information could have adverse effects on one's well being. But Atheism seems to benefit most of us just as well, allowing room to feel free from the burden of belief in a deity of sorts.

Great reason, but why do millions of people allow themselves to be threatened into submission?
After all, it's only one guy/girl in charge and only a few of the millions are actual security. (Police, body guards, FBI, etc.)

I would think it would be something that is honest to a point in which we could consider it a truth. Whether or not the truth in question is absolute, the honesty could become truth.
Example:
Sam: Hey, Buck! I believe that when I walk around without floating into space, it's called gravity.
Buck: Oh, really, how can you prove that?
Sam: I'm being honest, I swear! I can prove it by stating Newton's Law of Gravity.
Buck: Oh yeah! Well than, it must be true.

You have good reasoning, this was definitely the kind of response I would have considered myself. Still, do we even have such thing as an absolute? Whether honesty or truth?

1+1=2 is true by means of the rules of arithmetic. — I like sushi

But who made those rules? 1+1=2 could also be 1+1=II. It is not always true, we could symbolize two with objects, or use another numerical language to show what we mean. Like I said, it is only ever a percentage of truth.

Truth, in reality, is more of a concept. It's a way of trying to simplify the age old, what's wrong and what's right? Saying that something is truth, however, does not make it right, neither does it make it actual truth.