Will We Ever Discover that God(s) Do or Don't Exist?

[Pink Panther]

I am genuinely interested if we will ever answer the most asked question in all of humanity, if God(s) exist? And which ones? Also, if you do think we'll find the answer, when?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

We already have. God is not real.

[Dr. MB]

We already have. God is not real.

How do you know that?

It's often hard to prove something but it's close to impossible to disprove anything. How can you say, beyond any doubt, that God isn't real and there's no possibility of one? You can believe there's no God, sure, but you can never truly know.

To answer the question we can only really know after death (or if God decided to appear for some reason before that). Beyond that it's just faith.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We already have. God is not real.

How do you know that?

It's often hard to prove something but it's close to impossible to disprove anything. How can you say, beyond any doubt, that God isn't real and there's no possibility of one? You can believe there's no God, sure, but you can never truly know.

To answer the question we can only really know after death (or if God decided to appear for some reason before that). Beyond that it's just faith.

I don't think even Richard Dawkins, back when he was relevant as something other than a Weird Twitter stalwart, claimed that God's nonexistence had been conclusively demonstrated, only that there was (in his view) no rational or morally acceptable reason to believe in it. This is a question that doesn't admit of proof one way or another except in the most speculative sense of "proof". Claiming otherwise is dogmatism.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I prefer the mystique of not knowing, and the diversity of subjective and personal views that it affords. As I've said before, there have been certain incidents in my life that I have interpreted as signs that the deity that I worship exists and has sought to communicate that to me, but I prefer the ambiguity of not having more direct and physical proof.

[RINO Tom]

Almost certainly not, as it is a logical fallacy.  If there is no "God," there is nothing to discover or not discover; there will always be a "gap" allowing some to believe that there is indeed a deity of some sort, and we simply cannot discover such a thing.  If there is a "God," we logically cannot use tools and methods that would inherently be a part of such a deity's creation to prove it exists ... the whole game board pieces proving that there was a creator to the game board thing.

[Big Abraham]

The incorporeal, by the very nature of its own being, cannot be conclusively demonstrated in anything other than a philosophical or ontological sense. Science, which deals only with the physical universe, therefore can never prove, nor disprove, nor say anything conclusive about the immaterial.

[Samof94]

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a religion based around the existence of a contradiction of being invisible and pink?

[°Leprechaun]

Almost certainly not, as it is a logical fallacy.  If there is no "God," there is nothing to discover or not discover; there will always be a "gap" allowing some to believe that there is indeed a deity of some sort, and we simply cannot discover such a thing.  If there is a "God," we logically cannot use tools and methods that would inherently be a part of such a deity's creation to prove it exists ... the whole game board pieces proving that there was a creator to the game board thing.

That pretty much sums up why a debate on the existence of a deity is a waste of time.
It's been debated for many millennia and gotten nowhere. Why not just be a good person and focus on life in the here and now?

[If my soul was made of stone]

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a religion based around the existence of a contradiction of being invisible and pink?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a genuine religion devised in good faith. It's a poor man's version of New Atheist own-the-Christoids thought experiments like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and effectively just a parodic version of Russell's teapot designed to annoy anyone who places faith in a deity in a manner that even John Dule would find unsuited to the entire premise.

[Samof94]

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a religion based around the existence of a contradiction of being invisible and pink?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a genuine religion devised in good faith. It's a poor man's version of New Atheist own-the-Christoids thought experiments like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and effectively just a parodic version of Russell's teapot designed to annoy anyone who places faith in a deity in a manner that even John Dule would find unsuited to the entire premise.

On a more serious note, what about a universe where a deity exists but it isn’t a human one??? Imagine if the “chosen people” were some bug like aliens.

[°Leprechaun]

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a religion based around the existence of a contradiction of being invisible and pink?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a genuine religion devised in good faith. It's a poor man's version of New Atheist own-the-Christoids thought experiments like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and effectively just a parodic version of Russell's teapot designed to annoy anyone who places faith in a deity in a manner that even John Dule would find unsuited to the entire premise.

On a more serious note, what about a universe where a deity exists but it isn’t a human one??? Imagine if the “chosen people” were some bug like aliens.

The whole problem with the  "God myth" thing is that different religions have different concepts on exactly "who" or "what" the Supreme Being is. The Christian "God" tends to be thought of sort of as if "he" were not only human but "male" as well. Not everyone has
a similar concept of the "ground of all being". You could call the Supreme Being a Great Spirit or a Highest Power or the Tao etc. etc. etc.

[Samof94]

What about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a religion based around the existence of a contradiction of being invisible and pink?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a genuine religion devised in good faith. It's a poor man's version of New Atheist own-the-Christoids thought experiments like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and effectively just a parodic version of Russell's teapot designed to annoy anyone who places faith in a deity in a manner that even John Dule would find unsuited to the entire premise.

On a more serious note, what about a universe where a deity exists but it isn’t a human one??? Imagine if the “chosen people” were some bug like aliens.

The whole problem with the  "God myth" thing is that different religions have different concepts on exactly "who" or "what" the Supreme Being is. The Christian "God" tends to be thought of sort of as if "he" were not only human but "male" as well. Not everyone has
a similar concept of the "ground of all being". You could call the Supreme Being a Great Spirit or a Highest Power or the Tao etc. etc. etc.

That’s my point. Sentient aliens that superficially resemble ants might have a completely different concept of consciousness.

[HisGrace]

It's too abstract of a question to definitively answer. You can have an opinion on it so I'm not necessarily an agnostic, I bounce back and forth between deism and atheism.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We already have. God is not real.

It's called God or Universe and you can believe in Rapture or Reincarnation, we don't come from nothing, and we haven't dies yet, and in dream or death state it's called Astral plane

Everyone needs to pray, it's too much out here to get into trouble

[junior chįmp]

We already have. God is not real.

It's called God or Universe and you can believe in Rapture or Reincarnation, we don't come from nothing, and we haven't dies yet, and in dream or death state it's called Astral plane

Everyone needs to pray, it's too much out here to get into trouble

You are God

[The Mikado]

We already have. God is not real.

This gets into all sorts of "What can you call God" arguments. Can you call the Universe itself and everything that exists in it "God?" Can you call whatever force initiated the Big Bang "God," even if it's not sentient and didn't do anything intentionally or with a plan? (After all, something must have caused the Big Bang to occur) Can you call the natural laws of the universe without which there'd be no life, like the gravitational constant, "God?"

[Sestak]

My understanding is that almost every faith's conception of the existence of God or deities is, by its very nature, not provable (or disprovable).

[Torie]

The amount that we "know" about this issue one way of the other will not change - ever.

[RFayette]

Almost certainly not, as it is a logical fallacy.  If there is no "God," there is nothing to discover or not discover; there will always be a "gap" allowing some to believe that there is indeed a deity of some sort, and we simply cannot discover such a thing.  If there is a "God," we logically cannot use tools and methods that would inherently be a part of such a deity's creation to prove it exists ... the whole game board pieces proving that there was a creator to the game board thing.

I do think God's existence can be proved deductively and certainly don't think it's a "logical fallacy" to believe as such; there have been logical *proofs* - not merely probabilistic arguments - for God's existence by philosophers for millenia.  While we can't fully know the divine essence, we can deduce from classical theistic proofs from thinkers such as Aquinas that there must be a ground of all being, change, and contingency that itself can have *no limits* to its knowledge, power, etc.  So while we can't fully understand omniscience, for example, we can know what God *is not* - that is, not having limits to knowledge - and as such we can have a real knowledge about God's existence and his attributes without fully understanding them.

[TDAS04]

After we die.