Does God exist?

If God doesn’t exist, how does the pope exist?  I’m agnostic, but thought I would put that out there.

The pope could exist without God. If he evolved from a monkey to a man. Some think though, that he is still a monkey.

Why would a man elected by other men to be the 'conduit to God' be evidence of a god?

To be serious now.

Having a pope, priests, or even religion at all in no way shows that God exists. The plurality of religions shows that they all can't be right. So perhaps none of them are right.

God does exist, but only in the mind. I'm an apatheist BTW.

That seems to be a contradiction to me.

You've involved yourself in a discussion concerning the nature of gods, therefore you have shown interest not apathy.

If you were truly apathetic towards theism, you would have yawned and clicked on some other topic.

Nonetheless, I agree with the notion that Gods exists, but only in the mind.

would you consider an intelligent designer "God"?  Reason I ask is I just listen to some Stephen C. Meyer and he has some powerful arguments for, but not specifically saying there is a "God".

Praise JEsus

How?  The bible says that Jesus appointed Peter to be the 1st pope.  It´s not like any other religion has something the same or similar.

I used to believe this until I found out the evidence that is the pope and the continuation of popes that were appointed by God.  Who else appointed the first pope?

I probably would.

in that case, from what I know via theories etc, imo there is more reason to believe there IS intelligent design vs not/random occurrence or whatever people want to call it.

something must have caused the big bang anyway as he put it, physics is about how things interact but not where they come from.

Arguing with religious people is worse than with atheists but I'll say this and leave you to your own beliefs. Jesus never established a silly Papacy, rather a spiritual principle. Jesus never established eating his flesh and drinking blood, but a spiritual principle. The principle behind the passage involving Peter was a confession, it had nothing to do with Peter or his bloodline lol. The principle with "consuming" flesh and blood obviously was the understanding of application. Application of course means to do, funny how the Catholics attempted to solidify principles that could only be construed as understanding an underlying principle. What a shame, it's like everything Jesus came to break down religious goofs tried to reinforce. 

I´m not catholic but was raised that way.

The notion that the words and actions of Jesus are significant comes only with the presupposition that there is a God and Jesus was his son. To use the words of Jesus as evidence for god is a circular argument.

Starting with the existence of a god to prove the existence of a god is cheating logic. It's sort of like saying "the daughter of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said X". What is being said is irrelevant if the existence of the FSM and his daughter are not established fact...especially when trying to establish their existence as fact!

If Jesus didn't appoint the first pope, then who did?

Well, men speaking on behalf of a god - obviously.

It's not like Peter was elected by the people to be the pope.  Any men who did this would need Jesus as evidence.  The Israelite people were originally non Christian until they saw Jesus.

If Ollivander didn't give Harry Potter a wand, then who did?

I hope you see if someone doesnt hold a story to necessarily be true, then appealing to the story (as a proof of the overall narrative) is a waste of time.

Lol the Catholics, or those who interpreted that teaching the WRONG way. Either way it was a misconception and a detrimental one, did you not pay attention to what I said about principles? go back and read that passage, was Jesus trying to establish a papacy or was He establishing a principle? 

Then no need to fall into that baloney, the pure Gospels are better than any religious concoction. Jesus never established a papacy, that was pure hogwash. Jesus came to tear down the power and control of religious authority, not build it back up. 

Does God exist? Simply yes. He is perceived and believed by his adherents. And the papacy is actually a Pagan rite--in reference not to Peter, but to the Babylonian fish god, Dagon. If you notice the staff of the cardinals and bishops, "the crosiers," they're actually derived from the staff, Lituus, also known as the "crooked wand." The papal headdress, "Mitre,"  further informs the aforementioned argument because upon further inspection, the folded hat likens to a fish's mouth. Vatican city used to be known as "Saturnia" in veneration of the roman god, Saturn, who in his many incarnations over time can be related to the greek god, Chronos, the Egyptian god, Osiris and P'tah, and the Sumerian god, An. In other words, I'm stating that Catholicism is a pagan religion. With that said, most religions are.

A much better statement would be if God doesn't exist...how does Jesus exist? the Pope, any of them have no comparison to Jesus, not even close. Jesus was the one that resurfaced the face of religion, revealed another dimension/aspect of God, showed a much better way to view and relate to God. The way Jesus related to God was basically unheard of, it showed how one can be connected with such a reality it could be referred to as "Father". 

A Boson particle was thought to exist and 50 years later they proved that it did.  One of many examples proving much after the thought.

Since god is all that there is... sure, the pope is evidence of god, but he wouldn't be the pope without you and i, so we are also god. Whether you believe the pope or not is the same is whether you'd rather molest young boys or not... it's up to you.