If there is a God, should we ever know who made him/her/it? And if the answer is "God has always existed" then why not argue that the universe has always existed (even before the BingBang) and therefore not created by God. What I am really trying to ask is: How is leaving a question's answer infinite, any answer at all?

Question for someone religious probably: What is the significance of "faith," in religion? For example, why is the single most important thing in Christianity to have faith that Jesus is the son of God? Why wouldn't God let people just know all the answers?

I am an atheist. If there really is a "god", why is there no physical proof that he, she, it ever existed? Except for written words ... which, for all that we know, could be all lies so people can feel better about themselves.

I hear a lot of people say they believe in God because 'Who made us, the earth and the universe? It had to come from somewhere.' But if that's what you're basing your beliefs on, then shouldn't you want to know the answer to who made God? and who made who made God, and who made that? And shouldn't you be praying 'Oh all the things that made God and all the things that made them?' Ryan Gossger, Pottstown PA

The fact that we have eyes is proof that a consciousness was present, prior to our creation, which was aware of the existence of light. And while this truth does not confirm the existence of a God, doesn't it verify an intelligence older than our own?

Could God have made pi a simpler number?

Is religion a result of evolution? I mean, is the human kind fitter and more surviving by being religious?

If people did not fear death, is it likely that religion as we know it would not exist?

Does trying to prove the God exists undermine religion in that if successful, it removes the need for faith?

Why do many philosophers posit that there are no members in the set of necessary beings? There seem only two explanations if they are correct: 1) Necessary beings are logically possible, but none exist in this world or 2) Necessary beings are logically impossible. Explanation 1 seems untenable since if a necessary being exists in one world (is logically possible), then it must exist in all worlds (and thus this one) by virtue of its necessity. But explanation 2 (which seems likely the more preferred one) seems to do no better, since the set of necessary beings is made a subset of the set of impossible beings. While perhaps this is merely a trivial case, it still seems unsettling, if not contradictory. Is the existence of at least one necessary being necessary? Or is there some other explanation for how none could exist?