Does God Exist?

[Dan4reason]

Originally Posted by stephenw

You say Judeo-Christian God as if you were speaking about one God.
As I see it there is a Judeo-Christian God per believer and another per dis-believer.
From the point of view of this believer there is no more reason to say I exist than to say God exists.

From that reasoning there is also no more reason to say bigfoot exists than to say I exist. There is no more reason to say that fairies exist than to say that I exist. Obviously, there must be something wrong with this paradigm because since I think it is reasonable to believe that you exist, all sorts of myths are just as reasonable. I am now believing in Greek Gods, Viking Gods, Hindu Gods, vampires, fairies, trolls, Santa Clause, knomes, Global Warming, and all sorts of crazy things.

I don't see the need to bring unicorns into it

Why not?

Originally Posted by Wombat

Ok. I'm up for this one.
Not looking to 'prove'...looking to logic and reason to establish what is "likely" from the available evidence .
To that end wish to establish some common ground understanding/agreement regarding chance, probability, coincidence and anomaly.

Scenario-
You are a Steward at a race track, the ten race event is hurdles.
In race one there are a dozen starters and all horses fall or fail to complete the course except one.

On a scale of 1-10 denote how probable you would consider such an outcome?
(1 representing probable/not unusual...10 representing highly improbable/unusual.)

Just looking for a rough rule of thumb response...not detailed statistical probability.

Using complex statistical reasoning is very tempting for me since I am going for a statistical major, but I will refrain from the 2000 word analysis. I will guess that the probability is 9.5 because that one horse could still fall making the race winnerless. That race would be quite a sight to see.

Hmmm.....'Perspective' changes depending on where you stand to examine something. Understanding perspective is a comparatively recent phenomena for human beings. The earliest surviving use of linear perspective in art is attributed to Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi (1386-1466). Prior to the understanding of perspective the way we saw, interpreted and understood the world was very different. ie When a bull (or Auroch) in the distance was standing side on in prophile it was not an imediate and logical conclusion that one horn was obscured by another.
What the observer saw was a one horned beast and he did not have 'perspective' to understand it otherwise. He saw a 'Unicorn' and trusted the evidence of his eyes. The Auroch/Unicorn thus entered ancient art, mythology and writing.

Are you sure that would be a problem for a horse? One horn abscuring another? A two-horned unicorn would sure be a sight to see.


I could make my analogy not only with unicorns but with Greek Gods, Viking Gods, fairies, etc, none of which is much more or less likely than God.

No doubt in a thousand years they will be laughing at us for the things we saw/believed in...because we did not have the perspective to see and understand otherwise.

That I am sure of.

The question is, what will they be laughing at? Will they more likely to be laughing at the things we have faith in, or the things we have evidence for?

There may be need to take a broader perspective than "the Judeo-Christian God" ;-)

It is just a term to denote the general idea of God that a lot of people believe in. Everyone has their differences of perspective about that God obviously.

[Alex_G]

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

LovePeaceHappiness and I were having a debate about the atonement and he tried to support this by using arguments that assume that God already exists. When I confronted him with this he suggested I make a new thread about this topic, so here it is. The purpose of this thread is to use logic and reason to try to determine whether God exists, or at least find out whether it is likely that God exists.

I am defining God to be the Judeo-Christian God. There is no reason to say God exists any more than there is to say that unicorns exist because there is no evidence of God. This is a very common argument and is very persuasive.

I will assume we are discussing the objective existence of a god, and refrain from strolling down subjective lane, as tht only leads to 'everyone is right, for themselves' sort of conclusions.

Right, well as i see it, 2 aspects of god need to be proven, that is the deistic and theistic aspect. The former arguing that there was some divine initial creator, and the latter regarding his active involvement in the world, interventions, miracles, prayer answering and the like.

For the first point, creation, beginning, is a difficult and thought provoking idea, but i cant help but agree with the logic that having a god as a creator is no more informative or explanatory that just saying the universe just became. It poses the question of who created god, and an infinite regression is clearly set up.

Secondly, if we do think there was an intelligent god behind creation, its some design isnt it? Vast space and nothingness, littered with dead planets, annihilating stars, with life supported on at least one planet, on some of its surface some of the time.

A universe, that from all evidence is necissarily doomed, especially for life on earth, with the death of our sun, the collision with the Andromeda galaxy, the universal heat death. What 'sane' or competent designer did this?
If you say god is behind everything, what would a universe devoid of divine creation look like? I would think exactly like ours does!


As for his involvement and care in life, well im not sure where to begin.

For at least 100 000 years humanity as a species walked this earth, in total fear and struggle. Natural disasters, disease, a life expectancy of 25, with say a 50% death at childbirth. And for 98000 years heaven stood by and watched.

2000 years ago, decids it need to intervene, how you might ask? Present to the illiterate bronze age middle east, and have a human sacrifice.

I mean there are countless examples that make the idea of a caring, watching god very unlikely, or at least erratic in his approach!

[Skwim]

Originally Posted by St Giordano Bruno

I can use logic for a belief in the existence of aliens or parallel universes but sorry I can't for the life of me use logic for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God

I can use this syllogism for instance:
Major premise: Any phenomena that happened naturally can happen again elsewhere in the universe.
Minor premise: The earth with all its intelligent life is a phenomena that happened naturally.
Conclusion: Therefore a planet very much like it can happen elsewhere in the universe.

And I'm sure many Christians would argue that your minor premise is mistaken; Earth did not happen naturally, but supernaturally.

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

From that reasoning there is also no more reason to say bigfoot exists than to say I exist. There is no more reason to say that fairies exist than to say that I exist.

Quite. But in presuming you exist you are missing my point.

[ellenjanuary]

Cannot. As we evolve, so too our ability to conceptualize; and there is no benefit from organized personalized god-concepts. Actually, after having a talk with faith of man, I'm not seeing where god is serving any useful purpose. I do not know if I shorted another cluster, but this morning I saw religions operating without faith, and empty...

That ain't good. Then I looked at my Gwynnies, four hours went away; that was good.

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

I will guess that the probability is 9.5 because that one horse could still fall making the race winnerless. That race would be quite a sight to see. .

Great....someone who knows the odds!
Ok...All horses bar one failing to complete the course is an improbable event, it is not an impossible event but highly unlikley. When an experiment like horse racing has such a long history and is conducted with such frequency we know that unusual events can occur- most horses falling (or not even starting) can give us a 'Walkover'' and the common expression-"A one horse race".

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing that as a track Steward such an outcome would have your interest and attention and possibly some degree of suspicion?
It is difficult to 'knobble' an entire field of horses by getting them to fall...but inquiries would be made as to who owns the winning horse and what kind of power, influence and reputation they have...Yes?No?

(I'm calculating 3-4 post/echanges to establish baseline agreement on statistical probability if your up for it....You have asked a big question...it deserves a detailed examination ;-)

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

Are you sure that would be a problem for a horse? One horn abscuring another? .

Hey....Even 'mythical' beasts evolve!
Throught art, literature, scripture depictions change, evolve are re interpreted and mistranslated.
"The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornis) and employed unicorn to translate re'em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature. The American Standard Version translates this term "wild ox" in each case." Wiki

Aurochs/Re'ems become Unicorn/horses....it's all a matter of mythological evolutionary biology...........Don't you read Harry Potter books?

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

I could make my analogy not only with unicorns but with Greek Gods, Viking Gods, fairies, etc, none of which is much more or less likely than God. .

(Whispers)- Shhhhhhh.....That's the direction ( "Greek Gods, Viking Gods") I'm headed with the horse racing scenario...I'm making my analogy...you get to knock it down with devistating statistical probability analysis.

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

The question is, what will they be laughing at?.

At one end of the spectrum is the possibility they will be huddled in a powerless cave laughing (grimly) at our "faith" in inexhaustible resources and an invulnerable planet
...at the other end is the possibility they will be drifting in a garden in space laughing at our inability to have the perspective to see that there are not many horns on the humanity beast (divisions of race/religion/nationality) but that we are 'One People'.

Originally Posted by Dan4reason

Will they more likely to be laughing at the things we have faith in, or the things we have evidence for?.

Evidence and proof are different things but the former must preceed the latter.
The ancients had 'evidence' for Unicorns, they saw them, if they had come closer and taken a different perspective they would have obtained more evidence and their initial understanding/perception be proved wrong.

God or Unicorns...stepping closer, examining the evidence, understanding and changing perspective......thats allways been the trick

[ellenjanuary]

My book of scripture has taken it upon itself to provide the scenes to see where what is written went wrong. I may have to bury it.

[Comicaze247]

The Abrahamic "God" does exist. As a concept. Physically, there is no proof that he/she/it does. But in a way, it does exist.

Anything that causes someone to alter their behavior merely because they perceive that it is there means that it does exist, if only in their mind. Their altered behavior has a chance to affect you. For example, if someone you were on a hike with was to believe that there was a tree in front of them where you saw nothing, they would likely walk around it. If they were to walk around you and bump into you, the log indirectly affected you. You would also likely wonder wtf they're doing, affecting the way you think.

So the existence of something, I believe, is determined by whether or not it affects someone or something else.

[TheQueenCat]

Yes...

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Comicaze247

Anything that causes someone to alter their behavior merely because they perceive that it is there means that it does exist, if only in their mind. .

I like and apreciate the notion you present and recognise a number of validations in art, literature and even therapy....but I am also aware that some will loath the "exists- only in the mind" scenario.

To me what you propose raises issues of potency, influence, impact and importance.
A thing/object that is seen to exist may have have none of the above attributes.
A notion, concept, belief may have all of the above attributes, have profound effect on human behaviour and the material world, and yet "exist, only in the mind".

Some things exist and are not significant/influential...some notions may or may not exist and are highly significant/influential.

In Counselling/therapy if you give someone solid advice based on objective reality there is often (natural) resistance and failure to take the advice...however, give them a 'story', even a folk tale or completely mythological yarn that they can project themselves into...then insight and behaviour change is often achieved.

Narrative Therapy "causes someone to alter their behavior merely because they perceive that (they are) there" in the story...the story "exist, if only in their mind".
Religion, for good or ill, may fullfill the same role as Narrative Therapy...the story being more potent than the facts...or the story being a more potent means of conveying the facts