"Without god all is permissable."

Kalulu, or Sheikh Chully, I don't know his real name, it seems to change from culture to culture, was searching for his gold coin under a street lamp. People are helpful in nature, so they joined him in the search. After quite some time their frustration got to a stage where they asked him if he knew better where he had dropped the coin. "yes" he said, "in my cellar" Restraining themselves from lynching him they asked why they had wasted all their time looking for it in the street. "It's pitch dark in there" he said "and we all know you'll never find anything in the dark"

So why look ye for God in the supernatural when His signs are in the natural?

Jesus was alive, not dead, and when those who came looking for him in the tomb found it empty they were asked “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” Luke 24:5

The HQ says about the future because science as we know it didn't exist then "We shall [in time, clearly] show them Our signs in the utmost horizons [of the universe] and [even] within them­selves, until it becomeS clear unto them that this is indeed the truth.” HQ 41:53

Dr Timothy Winters of Cambridge University UK explains, for the those not trapped in shallow thinking but open to contemplation:

 





This post was edited by CLURT at March 31, 2017 12:01 PM MDT

Religion is the opiate of the people and God becomes the placebo effect when faith in him is strong. 
Maybe an effective placebo is evidence of a supernatural force but I would  not call it 'God' or any other name and thank it, worship it or pray to it.
The ''supernatural power' is the mind and can become an  active and effective force when suitably inspired. 

I think I found 'God'

"I think I found 'God'" the one to whom we can attribute the creation of the universe..... and your mind?

I meant I think I may have found your God but is something that I do not personify as a God. 
Supernatural forces if they exist at all do not create a universe 

"Supernatural forces if they exist at all do not create a universe" Okay, then what does, instead?

So what part of "education and science" has given you a level of certainty high enough for you to assert in such bold and highlighted letters that "THERE IS NO GOD(s)"?

The part where people who assert that there is a magical force living in the sky can't provide one shred of evidence to bolster their ancient, primitive superstitions

ok and TY GJ, but do you realise that you can't take their inability to "provide one shred of evidence to bolster their ancient, primitive superstitions...that there is a magical force living in the sky" and use that as valid evidence that there is no "magical force living in the sky"

So back to you. Where is YOUR evidence which has given you a level of certainty high enough for you to assert in such bold and highlighted letters that "THERE IS NO GOD(s)"?

SCIENCE

It's not my role to prove something that does not exist.  It's up to the believers to do that. That is the critical and most important part that escapes many.  Can someone prove that Zeus or Baal exists or does not exist?
It's all mythology which is basically the default human tendency to attribute the paranormal to anything which a scientific has yet to explain.  Like the the world being round instead of flat or the solar system where the earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun, moon, and the stars travel across the canvas of the sky. 

You say "SCIENCE" but science has been wise. It has so far never shouted out in bold highlighted letters that "THERE IS NO GOD(s)" If it has, do let me know in what journal and where.

Good point, it would be against the tenets of science to promote in either direction without proof. You can't say on one hand that you can't prove something does not exist, and then say that science says God doesn't. That's a good point, I never saw it like that before. But, like you Said earlier, the inability of science to prove there's no God, doesn't mean there is one, yes? This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 31, 2017 4:48 PM MDT

Indeed. "the inability of science to prove there's no God" cannot be taken as evidence that there IS God.

"thats the way people think" and isn't there at least an element of reason to it?

Last point first.  Proof is an uncertain term, there are many sorts of proofs one may offer.  Still, I suspect proof of god is always inferential.  This is why religious people use the term, "leap of faith."  Your final comment about scientific proof is curious.

To your initial premise. Yes people may respond to a person as a law giver more readily than a legislative codified law.  This does not mean the person or deity exists, but merely that the concept is useful.

"Leap of faith" has its scientific equivalent in "quantum leap". They both describe the same process of getting from A to B without traversing the space between. Does that lend credence to faith? (Rhetorical).

"Useful" may be more important than "truthful". In many cases, it is clearly more effective - this being one. (When the truth is unknown). In a world limited by rationality, useful can be seen as equal to truth. I trust I'm not being too obscure.

In other words, a rational worldview will always put a fence around God. If God is, he is transcendent. Hence, his existence in terms of proof is irrelevant.