Existence of God

[Paroxys]

Hmm... I will give an unorthodox answer. The CONCEPT of God exists, but as for the Christian conception of God (which it looks like we are talking about), I am heavily disinclined to agree.

Humans, as the imperfect beings we are (yes we are highly imperfect, get over it), are limited by our perceptions. For all we know, this could be very well be a false reality generated by an extremely advanced alien computer modeling system, but its no less real to "us."

God (in the judeo-christian sense) is a creation of human, a concept to explain the unexplainable, and likely as a means of asserting authoritarian control over peerage by claiming divine favor. The Bible (proclaimed Holy Book of absolute truth) itself, is full of so many contradictions, so many flip-flops, that it would make John Kerry's windsurfing look stable and unchanging.

I will perhaps concede, whatever was here before the "beginning of time" is "God," but that is under no circumstances whatsoever the God described in pretty much any mass religion.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Paroxys

...but as for the Christian conception of God (which it looks like we are talking about)

Nah. Just God.

[Paroxys]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Nah. Just God.

Capitalization of the "g" in God, is an indication that we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God. Muslims use Allah, Buddhists use (lo and behold) Buddha, ancient Greco-roman gods and goddesses (note the non-capitalization) are referred to with non-capitalization or by name (Egyptians too). Pastafarians have their FSM.

Also contextually, Yahweh seems most relevant.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Paroxys

Capitalization of the "g" in God, is an indication that we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

I've heard of that standard, but I don't know if it's commonly used on this forum. I do know that as a non-Christian I wasn't using in that context. It seems limiting to say only the Christians can have it.

Personally, I would associate God more with Buddha-nature than Buddha, but maybe that's just me.

What context gives Yahweh greater relevance?

[Paroxys]

I have no idea in this forum either, but it is the standard they use when discussing religious literature in English classes (at the very least mine) so that's why i continue to use the standard.

It seems relevant as the prior posters who specifically referenced God, gave a reference that is was Yahweh, either through Jesus, or church. While (I may be generalizing through my skimming) others of a more spiritual calling referenced a "being."

Anyway, this sort of strict definition is for clarification purposes only.

[Riverwolf]

Well, I do believe in many deities, among them Yeh'vah, the Lonely Guardian of the Desert, called by men El. (a.k.a, "God.")

Why do I believe that these beings exist? Well, for starters, in my beliefs, they are not allowed to interfere in our affairs in any way whatsoever. Gaia, our Planet, has given Her children specific instructions when they became One with Her(that is, once they became Guardians, or Lesser-Gods). Their Purpose is unknown to us, as it does not concern us. However, there have been multiple incidents of this rule being broken, as many of these Guardians, including Yeh'vah, have interfered with our affairs, such as causing Santorini to erupt so that Pharaoh Ahmose(sp?) would let his people go. (chronicled in Exodus, source of newly-obtained and possibly incorrect[though not likely] knowledge from the program "The Exodus Decoded" from the History Channel; highly recommended) There are other examples of this happening in the distant past retold rather inaccurately in our old campfire stories, and even lesser spirits who are restless still continue to haunt us as ghosts. Therefore, I believe they exist, though I do not claim to know everything, nor am I opposed to the high probability that I'm completely wrong on my stance, as to back it up I only have third-party sources, and I'm still learning about the world.

In short, I believe that gods exist because I see no reason why they can't exist, on a spiritual level. What are they? How should I know? But footprints have been left, one of the most well-known mentioned above.

BTW, Buddha isn't a god. They actually asked him if he was, and he explicitly said: "No." When they asked him what he was, he replied: "I am awake."

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Paroxys

Anyway, this sort of strict definition is for clarification purposes only.

I find I often don't need clarification if the context is clear. I can look at the context and figure things out from there, such as the reasoning as to why I refer to the Hebrew God as Yeh'vah instead of Yahweh.

[Mister Emu]

Experiences...

[idea]

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye." - link

I believe because there is more to life than what meets the eye.

[rojse]

Thanks you to everyone who has decided to respond so far. Would appreciate more opinions.

Am I right in assuming that the people that present ontological proofs for the existence of God have not had any direct experience with God?