Ben of York asks if anyone has proof of God. This is something like asking a little fish to prove the existence of the ocean it finds itself alive in. God is not a physical object or even a law of nature that can be proved by science or mathematics. We cannot prove what a man is thinking but we can 'prove' him by his physical self or perhaps by his actions. God has made Himself known physically in the historic person of Jesus but in addition both His thoughts and His actions are very clear to anyone who really seeks to know them. The sad truth is that man has been blinded and cannot accept the abundant proof of His existence all around us.
To ignore God is the greatest sin man can commit but to go out of the way to promote this ignorance of God must be even a greater sin. I expect Humphry to make it into the eternal kingdom-not at all sure about Dawkins.

Leander R PIMENTA, EMSWORTH, ENGLAND

Do you religious people feel proud of the total lack of self-worth shown by Bethany who is just 13? Is that moral? Read Dawkin's chapter on morality. Do you seriously think morality has only been around for a few thousand years and all athiests are evil? Even if religion helps us it doesn't make it true.

Has anyone got any proof for god?

Ben, York,

Yet, John Lloyd of Blandford, Dorset paadox is that we can only begin deeply to know ourselves by getting to know God. Methinks you dismiss the NT too rapidly.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

If NBeale of London has in fact got his/her finger on the pulse of religious ‘fervour’ in the UK, then either the number of ‘sad atheists’ is far greater than those who would fill out a YouGov poll, or the ‘sad atheists’ have now begun to outnumber the theists and deists combined. Observe how empty the Christian churches are now on Sundays. Some of the churches in my area receive more visitors during the week, due to the interest in the historic building, rather than the purpose for which the building has existed the last 800 years, to provide.
I do agree that in the last 25 years we have, as a nation, become more materialistic and as a consequence, the spiritualistic aspect of society will recede. Perhaps the very necessity of visiting historic churches is a demonstration of the materialistic over the spiritualistic aspect of life in 2007.

Michael Nye, Colnbrook, Slough., U.K

The New Testament is offered to us as an authority for believing. But it is subject to the slings, arrows and wishful thinking of mankind, and can surely be accepted by no historian. It is supported by an astonishing selection of truly contradictory stories that would scarcely grace a child's bedroom. They are stories from ancient religions that were told centuries before the NT was written. So what are we left with ? Well, perhaps there is a rich mass of spiritual experience and intuition lying within our cultures but discounted, even condemned, by religious authority. 'Know thyself ' said the oracle, to be repeated a few centuries later by the pert question "How can we know our God, if we dont know ourselves?" I suspect that that is how John Humphry's will find his God, and I will find mine. If the churches will help us all in our seeking, well and good. If not, they will, as surely as god made little apples, go down.

John Lloyd, Blandford, Dorset, UK

Worship of God is the only way to reduce the evil that is potentially apparent within our personalities, everywhere in the big wide world and often corrupting religious communities. There is no morality without this.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Maybe there is a need to rethink the question. What do we mean by believe in God ? Is that the right question anyway? It seems to me that this is not an important question because it immediately takes us into looking"out there" . Where did you go looking ,John ?
My view is that the question is "Do we exist ?" We know about the psychological "belief in ourselves" which athletes and successful people have. But do we believe in the fact that we exist? I know kids who have so long been ignored that they doubt their own existence. We can't answer this belief in God question without at least asking ourselves about our own existence as opposed to our own ability. I believe both beliefs will coincide.

Peter Sadler, Milton Keynes, UK

Thanks for publishing John Humphrey's riposte to some of the more militant atheists' views, which are as absolutist as some of the religious believers whom they decry. If only they and religious extremists would both admit that no-one has the absolute truth in this life, then there might be less conflict.

The vast majority of evil in this world is caused not by religion per se (except where some distort it for their own ends), but by man's inhumanity to man which would still exist even if we abolished religion tomorrow. In fact it might get worse because if we believe that we are just bio-chemical machines on our way to extinction, then there is no logical reason why we should 'do unto others as we would have them do unto you'. And what about the many charities, health and education needs which were started by people of faith?

Alexandra Wasef, Croydon,

I'm definitely an "other" I don't believe in any deity, but I think such belief may be an inevitable consequence of our rationality. When I or John Humphrys or Pascal or Tolstoy ask these questions we end up at the same point. I will die, my children will die, the human race will die out, and as we now know even the material universe will die. The question is only whether, as Tolstoy puts it, it's easier to live out a natural span with this knowledge that nothing matters, or put an end to it sooner.

From a purely evolutionary point of view, this state of mind is not good. People with no point are unlikely to breed! We need to have a point, and if we can't have a point inside the universe, we have to plump for one outside.

The tragedy is that someone - let's call him "Abraham" - figured out how to harness this powerful urge for purely political ends. We _could_ have had a world in which all believers were Jains, but after Abraham that was alas a distant dream.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Thanks for John Humphrey's article giving a riposte to some of the more militant atheists' views, which are as absolutist as some of the religious believers' whom they decry. If only both they and religious extremists would admit that no-one has the absolute truth in this life, then perhaps there would be less conflict.

The vast majority of suffering and evil in this world is not caused by religion per se (except where some distort it for their own ends), but by man's inhumanity to man which would still exist if we abolished religion tomorrow. In fact it might get worse, because if we believe that we are just bio-chemical machines on our way to extinction, there is no logical reason why we should 'do unto others as we would be done by'. And what about the charities, health and education needs which have been started by people of faith?

Alexandra Wasef, Croydon, U.K.

I haven't read the full article on the book (Sunday Times, 2 Sept.) but, I also feel I do not belong to any of these categories! I also listened to Mr. Humphrey's BBC Radio 4 Programmes,. His hosts were terrific! Excellent all of them, especially the Rabbi.
I don't understand when people speak of a 'personal' God.
This has no place within our Church. We are the church. Therefore, we can not have a personal God. God is there for everybody. Even for JH, R. Dawkins and all the atheists and agnostics together.
I'm a catholic with a 100% FAITH in God Almighty.
To be clear, I am talking of the GOD of the Jews, first, and later of all Christians. God The Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
For me there is no other possibility of us existing if we do not believe that after our physical death, we will be enjoying of the presence of our Creator. That was HIS PURPOSE for us!
Otherwise, what is the purpose of this life? Please, someone else TRY to explain this Mystery to me. Thanks.

Mrs. L.T. Wicks, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire

Two things in common that everyone in all Humphrys groups have are . An acceptance of the laws of nature and an awareness of the physical world we live in including love justice beauty etc and the inbuilt desire for this awareness to continue indefinitely.
Obviously natures laws were designed by a lawmaker and atheists would call this lawmaker 'Nature' and they would also say that awareness is a consequence of evolution.
Christians link the lawmaker and the giver of awareness into
one Universal power and intellegence and call 'it' GOD
So the real debate is not whether or not God exists but what
characteristics should man attribute to Him I have no doubt whatsoever that God has revealed His characteristics in the Bible because He really wants to have a personal relationship with every human being. Sadly few of us can be bothered to respond and most even fight it off. Religions could do more to help their members to understand and strengthen this bond but sadly this is not so.

Leander R pimenta, EMSWORTH, ENGLAND

John Humphrys' argument is hopelessly inept and rudderless.
His analysis of atheism is hamfisted and bungling. Surely he can't really think that "we know nothing". Thanks to the patient, diligent, OBJECTIVE work of scientists through the ages, we know so much about the REAL origins of the natural world. There is simply no need to give the time of day to contradictory, bloodthirsty fairy-tales. Humans INHERITED their sense of morality from their primate ancestors, not given it by some fictitious "God". His argument is even more corrosive to reason and objectivity than even the most blinkered cleric because he seeks to confuse humanist atheism while grotesquely claiming that religion isn't to blame for the world's problems. Well, men and women are "inspired" to acts of cruelty by religious fervour. That is a fact. The sooner humankind can rid itself of "belief", however Mr. Humphrys wishes to define it, and he certainly does his utmost to confuse, the better for our species.

Graham Mathers, Wirral, Merseyside,

A very healthy situation! After aeons of being bossed about and terrorised by organised religion we now feel free to take it or leave it to any degree and manner and the world is a happier place for it. Two world wars and a century of unimaginable suffering was the death of organised religion as people realised it actually has no answers and life is simply for living

Chris Thomas, Oxford, England

Traditional religious beliefs have not been allowed to develop along with our own evolution as a species.
For us to “catch up with ourselves” we need to challenge and re-evaluate our traditional beliefs, changing what needs to be changed and discarding what is no longer relevant.
Suppose at the beginning of time there was only Intelligence – and nothing else!
Who is it - What is it – Who knows?
The answer I would suggest is to “Create” an infinite number of different aspects of itself. Through the experiences (of life), created by these “opposite” aspects interacting with each other in a constantly changing environment, this Intelligence can gradually build up a picture of who and what it is in a “living and working” universe.
Balance is the means by which this information is interpreted and evaluated.
This is my personal slant on what Science refers to as “The Big Bang” and Religion calls "Creation", and combining all beliefs provides me with answers and purpose to life.

John Coombes, Sevenoaks, UK

there must be someone out there who is not in any of the categories mentioned by Mr.Humphrys (to keep me company in mine)..you see, I don't give a toss one way or the other.....

ed.bradbury , bournemouth, dorset

The estimable John Humphrys at last puts a foot wrong.
On religion "getting its message across" he speaks (understandably) as one born into missionary Christianity, the splinter group of Judaism's Paul - 'the first Christian.' Paul broke with Judaism's non-evangelical, non-proselytising principle of 'Let those who wish to be Jewish show their faith and join us (as did Ruth) but do not encourage. Paul succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in "getting his message across" and started a conflict. Is this not the entire point of the debate? We Jews say there are many paths to Gxd. and therefore proudly score zero in "getting our message across."

(Prof) Sydney J. Bush, HULL ENGLAND, East Yorkshire

God loves you!
God created this world and it was perfect. God created Adam and Eve to look after his creation but they disobeyed him under the influence of the devil snake and let sin into the world.
Because God is so perfect and Holy and we were/ are so sinful we were seperated. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy sent us is only son (Jesus) who died the ultimate suffering and death with all the sins of the earth on his shoulders then rose again. So we are now forgiven when we ask and can receive enteral life with him forever.
I have a personal relationship with God. The purpose of my life is to glorify the God who saved and loves a wretch like me. Then to go up to heaven to meet him ensuring other's below have also had the peace, love and salvation I had.
I'm only 13 and yet I have made my own commiment to him, talk to all the time about everything, been to a christian (Newday) event with 7,000 teenagers and seen hundreds of people healed!

Bethany, Winchester, Hampshire

Not exactly looking like a riveting read...

Chris Jackson, London,

If this so called god were to exsist he or she would be seventeen billion years old and take as much notice of us as we do of the well being of a mayfly or ant. He or she did not bother to create us for the first sixteen billion and nine hundred million and ninetyfour thousand years so excuse me if I doubt a little.

James Williss, Tamworth , England

You leave out a significant alternative: "Transcendental "Truth" itself is not meaningful". This implies that a religious world view and an atheist/scientific realist worldview are simply different accounts of the world, they are put to different explanatory functions, and cannot sensibly judged in each other's terms. It also explains how people can hold both at the same time. Yes, it's a post-modern sort of view, but makes a load more sense than the analytic arguments that are dominating the debate today.

Olly Buxton, Highgate, London

Simply put religion is man's invention but God is forever. It is up to mankind to discover God in their own way & live a life that this experience will bring.

Man is obsessed with material things & this world is on the way to self destruction by the selfish & irresponsible actions of world leaders & the influence of men who supposedly set acceptable examples to our young people!

We as a nation need to take stock of our way of life & remove all that is creating disharmony amongst decent living & law abiding citizens.

alan armstrong, Chesterfield, Derbyshire

I suspect that this shows that the kind of people who answer you.gov surveys on religion are less religious than the general population. The net is full of a lot of sad atheists.

NBeale, London, England