The question as to whether or not GOD exists is a question which has many different answers. If perception truly is reality. That is the way in which one perceives the world is the vantage point from which one will see the world. So if you are a Christian for however long during that time you will see the world as a Christian. Or Atheist, whatever have you.
But, if perception truly is reality if everyone was born with no concept of a "GOD", "heavens" ,"hell" no concept of the possibility of an afterlife would "GOD" not cease to exist in the first place? Can something exist that no one has no knowledge of and does not believe in?
It would stand to reason in my opinion if no one believed in "GOD" it could not exist. For the "GOD" machine is very much dependent on believers. "GOD" itself in the logical sense, in a more pure sense has no need for followers, it is, as it is with "GOD". It does not need worship from humans or to feel secure in the fact it knows that we know of its existence. After all, humans for all purpose’s have no empirical physical evidence "GOD" exists. Why would such a supreme entity, being need self assurance let alone assurance of it's own greater intellect, supremacy from mere mortal humans? Such then could not be a very powerful "GOD", certainly not very sure of itself. Such a "GOD" would need it's own psychologist.
If "GOD" however, does exist it certainly does not need religion and is completely separate from this notion about belief in "GOD". Christianity in of itself logically is one of the worst religions to follow on the planet, because it's setup is not determinate unto truth but onto conveniences. If something cannot be explained it just smiles and suggests that is beyond the capacity of a mortal to understand the reasoning. And at the very same time if something can be explained through rational human thought, logic, experimentation, scientific and mathematical theory, this too is still an extension of the one called "GOD". Is this not extremely convenient? To have both possible scenario's already with a solution that is open ended. It’s not genius but it is rather clever in it's setup.
The truth of the matter really is "GOD" is an escape, a crutch, a debilitating condition of the acceptance and lack of responsibility for and of suffering. Look at the setup of "Christianity" the most popular religion in these United States of America.
Man internalizes his pain and rather than take the steps to correct such deficiencies by the actions most necessary, he blames suffering on an external tormentor this being "evil", "bad luck", "the devil", "bad karma" whichever you wish to call it. Christianity in it's setup applies to the downtrodden, the weak, the disadvantaged. Think about it, why bother and strive to make the current life situation you are in better by taking better steps to alleviate them screw it you’ll get your rewards later and in the end, in the next life.
It"s based heavily on resentment of those with power, with success, with "luck", with "skill". Then it becomes well faith is not about achievements in life but rather matters of the "soul". So rather than dealing with the present, the focus becomes on the afterlife, the transition to another plane of existence. Of course this a plane in which one cannot see and can only gain entry through death. So now because the world, the reality one lives in becomes unacceptable, harsh, burdensome, and above all painful. And life is painful. Such an acceptance of this vantage point on life devalues life itself.
The reasoning that comes to the surface is that, if the afterlife is so grand, so peaceful, so wonderful why not just commit suicide and to hell with skipping "GO"? Just go for it. But then there is restraint, the restraint of the concept of "guilt" of "sin". But what are these really? To deny the negative qualities of human nature and the will not to embrace them those being sex, disrespect, skepticism.
Morals have no altruistic value, neither does sin, or guilt. These are merely words that express concepts and behaviors that some humans become disgusted with in man’s existence. To say one acting or committing "sin" and it is against "GOD" is absurd and is nothing more than an opinion. Truly, humans cannot have intimate knowledge of a "GOD" which by their own definition is mysterious. So basically "GOD" could have changed its mind eons ago and we would never know if this occurred, there could have been a misunderstanding, a misquote.
I do not proclaim to know "GOD", its judgment, its existence by any stretch. But I do know to claim anyone person, group, or authority, to suggest a specific way is the only way too such is completely self serving and absurd. The ten commandments serve not to safeguard human behavior but to restrict, and if humans are incapable of restricting themselves for the betterment of all then you need something in place by which to control them psychologically.
Here is where "GOD" fits most perfectly. Think about it, Moses goes to the top of a mountain, by himself, no one else around, and for better or worse comes up with ten rules in which to help control the populous from complete anarchy. Nothing wrong his reasoning. But he is not stupid. If he comes down and says I declare we follow these rules, these laws, well he is just one man with his opinion whom is he to dictate? Yet, he comes down and says these are the "Commandments from GOD" when the people did believe in "GOD" already, the reasoning, the will to follow becomes airtight. There becomes no room for argument. Look at the ten commandments from a logical standpoint.
I) "Thou shall have no other gods before me". This makes "GOD" into an insecure diva, but let's look at it realistically. How do you create unity, peace, and harmony? If everyone believes in the same ideas. So in order to maintain the peace it was beneficial to create one "GOD". Having dissenting "GODS" creates problems, leads to argument, anarchy, unrest. (Explains Constantine's reasoning for the switch, huh?)Makes logical sense. Maybe it's to stem chaos for all practical reasons, maybe this was to suppress argument from those of different vantage points and ideas. And that is "GOD" through oppression, not "salvation".
II) "Thou shall not make unto thee, any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is the water underneath". So for all purpose "GOD" is to be image less, colorless, non race specific, even gender specific…technically. It’s presumed male but any who. But why? If you say "GOD" looks like this or that, people that will look different from this "GOD" will ask for conformation of some kind which you cannot give, so this avoids that whole question. Same with heaven, don't know what that looks like so if you do not describe, you cannot mislead unintentional or intentional. And if goes perfectly with the 1st commandment, if you begin to worship the something in the earth or water you run great risk of violating the 1st commandment.
III) "You shall not take the name of the LORD your GOD in vain" Some people would suggest that this means do not say "God damn" or anything like that. I do not think that was his aim. "Vain" means of no real value, idle, worthless, futile and unsuccessful. As well to be not conceited, narcissistic, vainglorious. Now to me this does not mean do not curse and say "GOD" at the same time, but do not engage in overly professing your belief in "GOD", do not excessively state your belief, your faith in "GOD", do not beat people with your achievement of believing in "GOD" be humble about it. Why? Because when boasting it leads generally to people feeling inadequate, and when people feel on is being preachy or full of themselves it alienates and causes discord. Of course this was not the intention of Moses, he was trying to quell unrest and bring together perhaps not through the most honest of means but the ends was going to justify in his logic I would gather.
IV) "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy". Simply, remember to worship at some point on the 7th day. This could be Sunday or Saturday logically depending on how you count. It does ensure a day off, a day of relaxation more or less. It takes away worship from the "LORD" if one is always at work with tasks at hand, as well people whom are overworked lose interest, and you cannot further interest into "GOD" if everyone is too busy to listen.
V) "Honor thy mother and father" The most ambiguous of the commandments. What is honoring one’s parents and what is not? Let alone why is this inserted. Some would tell you it is because at the time children more or less do as many do now but to a lesser extent take their parents in their home whence they reach old age and provide for them. But it has to do with adulation. If one cannot respect one's parents that are their physically, how can they be called on to worship and pay homage to something which has to be found and cannot be seen? So if you can raise them to honor their parents first, surely they can at least find it almost equal to honor "GOD". Once again still maintaining societal control to "GOD" by other means.
VI) "Thou shall not kill". Basic enough. Even rational. Accept when it comes to defense, and threats. Of course you do not see an exception made to this rule till you get to the New Testament in Matthew when "Jesus the savior" says it is okay to kill as long as you have a reason. Matthew 5:21-22 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment; But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment". As long as you kill for a reason "a cause" you are not in danger of "the judgment". Now if you connect that to the crusades, the holy inquisition, slavery, Salem witch trials…you can make the case this justified those from a Christian standpoint. But why place it in there? Simply, people like to live. And not quite ready to leave earth behind. Nothing inherently controlling about this commandment except it may allow for a threat to still exist when it is more rational the threat be neutralized immediately.
VII) "You shall not commit adultery". Adultery is a sexual unfaithfulness to a married person. But even broader than this specific definition it means honor your commitments. Which makes sense. You make a promise stick with it, do not welsh. Nothing wrong with that, someone makes a promise to us we expect them to keep it and honor the agreement. Just a reasonable expectation here. But aside from that, it cuts down on rampant sex with many different partners, which does cut down on disease. But since adultery can only logically apply to married persons it is designed to restrict married people's from "double dipping" into the pools of single people. Basically, you got yours let others get theirs. Do not be greedy, and selfish by doing this double dipping. Why is this a control? Well if you have married couples they in essence are off limits, but if they are not adhering to these rules, then how can you expect those whom are not married to not restrict themselves from their desires when for all purposes these married persons have someone to fulfill their human sexual desires? It becomes great hypocrisy and leads to great discord as well.
VIII) "You shall not steal" Simple enough as well. Logical. Even helps promote public safety. But if you have any knowledge of mosaic law is was not stealing if you were stealing food, or something in someone’s fields because you were hungry. Stealing was stealing basically for the sake of it, this brand if you will of stealing was problematic, this kind would not be tolerated at all. A necessary control perhaps, helpful? No question. But the broader point it still connects to greed, envy. Greed, and envy someone would call it economy others say it leads to a negative place. I would argue the concept of value leads to that negativity not stealing in of itself.
IX) "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors". Basically, do not lie. Once again nothing wrong with this as well. No logical problems. But lying causes a good deal of harm for others, but more importantly why do people lie? To make themselves seem more important than what they are, to place focus on themselves. To draw worship away from the "LORD" and that goes against the 1st commandment which from which all the others after it flows.
X) "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's". Well like I said this is called economy. Now does having possessions make people angry, resentful? Yes to an extent. To covet is to extremely desire, like I really have to have what they have. This is not to be confused with seeking your own and creating a good economy, but jealousy of all things, having disaffection for your own life and accomplishments and that turns the focus from "GOD" once again to you the individual and that is wrong in the eyes of Moses and these commandments. Now maybe this was said so people would have the attitude of not feeling envious, feeling like losers, being appreciative of their lot in life. Or perhaps it was said in order to keep people to "GOD".
Remember the appeal of Christianity is to those whom are suffering and dissatisfied with their life. The meek, the weak, the slow, the ugly, the poor. It's setup, its design is for those who have great disaffection with their own life. Because when one is happy and satisfied with one's own life, there really is no need for the Christian "GOD". He's not speaking for you, towards you, hell really he is condemning you for being successful, and for getting through your hardships and not letting it keep you down. And when you do not need "GOD", when you do not need to seek him, it takes away from his worship, logically. Because with your success there is no reason to wrap yourself up in the reality of the suffering of others. It is not apart of your perception any longer, thusly unnecessary and immaterial.