Top Seven Reasons God Exist.

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you have any "evidence" that is not a blatant logical fallacy?

Take out the word God. Ignore the Spoiler. Cut up the OP to:

Mind
Purpose
Ability to create (like I create poetry)
Universe (real: stars, planets, sun, moon, earth)

These exist, right?

If they do, I am just calling them God.

If youre thinking about monotheistic lens, no, what i say will not make sense

 

[JoStories]

These all employ circular reasoning. You are assuming you proposition in your reasoning.

That was exactly what I was thinking Leibowde. Consider, for example, #6. God exists because the creator. Excuse me? How does one even begin to wrap understanding into that?? Its nonsensical. At least to me.

 

[JoStories]

God meaning a being?

God is consciousness, that's all that means. It's (not he or she or it really) is our mind.

It's a fancy word for all the reasons I described. People get hung up on the word God.

Carlita, how is "God exists because the creator" not circular? What creator? Is creator to be equated with God? Is God the creator? How do you begin to define the terms here?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. God exists because you exist.

If God is consciousness, you exist because you to have consciousness. Without mind, you can't live. As such, God is just a label to explain your mind in relation to your survival. Without it, you cannot exist. To prove minds or consciousness does not exist is to prove that all living beings and things have no energy and motivation (however it is called in animals, etc) to live. Since you do have this instinct, etc. God does exist.

And if God is a mug, then God is a label we put on a mug to explain the existence of a mug. Mugs exist, therefore God exists.

2. God exists because without "Him" (using a pronoun for convenience not for a specific God), you would literally be brain-dead.

As mind, awareness, and energy, He is you and you are Him. Without Him, no survival. The body can't live without God.

This is just a claim, not an argument. Is there any logical reason a God is necessary for the existence of a brain?

3. God exists because of design and pattern in the universe.

Don't panic. Let me explain. God is nature. Nature has a pattern. As we are born, grow, age, and pass on this pattern is the process of God. God lets the ants make a mold hill and corroborate with each other in what they do even though it's repetitive and quote annoying during the summer time. God is the sun that rises, sits, and sets. God is the moon phases from full (happy full moon day!), to quarter, to new and back to quarter, and full again. God is energy=energy makes this happen. Therefore, God exists.

Again, these are just more claims and relabelling of God. Also, patterns are the result of the recognition of a mind - they are not innate concepts that exist independent of our ability to recognise them.

4. God exists because we all want a sense of purpose in life.

Don't panic. Let me explain. Without a purpose, why would doctors want to be doctors? Why would people want to have a family? Why would students want a full education? Why would you want to clean your home? Why would you want to live a healthy life? Why do you want to live? Your body says you do. Your mind says you do. This is biological and psychological. As such, no one escapes this want and some times need to challenge oneself to build a purpose (or insert whatever would you like) in life. Does it have to be spiritual: No. Does it have to involve the Alpha and the Omega? No. Don't panic. Why do you want to live? That purpose IS God.

I don't believe in God. My life has purpose. Ergo, this argument is false.

5. God exist because He is our inner wisdom.

He is the "light-bulb" that goes off in our head when we have a great idea. He is the poet's fever to write words (as I am doing now, I can't help it. High fever, apparently) in beautiful pose. He is what some of us call coincidences. He is the synchronicity in life. There need not be anything supernatural in all this. Where would you be without having new ideas? Where would you be if you didn't fulfill the passion you have? Where would you be without the psychology of bringing new things or thinking about the old? All of what I just said and more IS God. Without it, we would be bodies and minds--machines without a motor.

Another claim. Is there any reason to assume ideas cannot exist without a God?

6. God exists because He is the Creator.

Don't panic. Everyone has a different view of what the Creator entails: Myself included. Creator, to me, is not someone who brings something into nothing. That's magic. There is no magic. Creator creates things from what is already here. We create buildings. We create books by writing them. We are creators of our inventions. We create. So, behind all of the world's atoms and such, the Creator is the energy or physics that make one force (say water) come together with another force (say land). The Creator creates mountains. He creates the valleys. He makes the winds into hurricanes.

What is already here is put together by energy (or whatever the physic's word is) to create one thing into another. Sperm and egg creates a child. Rotten food can bring maggots. So forth.

One does not need to create something from nothing to be a Creator.

Another claim, not an argument.

7. God exists because He is a concept or idea, a word to describe the simplicity of life (most of what I described above)

As a concept, God can shift into a force, a being, a Alpha, Odin, or any other being, force, (fill in the blank), that can exist. We don't need to worship it for it to be God. It does not have to be supernatural to be God. It doesn't have to have spiritual terminology to be God. For example, we say we make "gods" out of money. We make "gods" out of our family. Why? Because way put these at more importance than ourselves.

THAT is God. What or who we put as an importance over ourselves regardless of who or what it is. Do you value something more than yourself? Do you value your family? Your friends? Loved ones? If you think of others more than yourself, you experienced God. Thereby, God exists.

Again, this is just relabelling. I can label "God" to mean "a mug" and therefore say that God exists, but that doesn't tell us anything about the existence of a supernatural, creative agency.

Are these arguments actually serious?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, how is "God exists because the creator" not circular?

I dont understand?

What creator? Is creator to be equated with God? Is God the creator? How do you begin to define the terms here?

Its in the spoiler. Also, God had many definitions. We just keep using monotheistics. There is a pattern in all religions or spiritual walks. Why do we keep using God as if he is a creator or god if he is Odin or god as the universe etc.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, no. They are not meant to be serious. The monotheistic lens is messing things upm

And if God is a mug, then God is a label we put on a mug to explain the existence of a mug. Mugs exist, therefore God exists

Thats all I am saying.

The mug could be--your mind, the universe, you. The mug does not come out of nowhere. So we use already things here to make or create something new (we think its new). So we are creators.

This is just a claim, not an argument. Is there any logical reason a God is necessary for the existence of a brain?

Take the word God out. There is a brain and mind. They exist.

Again, these are just more claims and relabelling of God. Also, patterns are the result of the recognition of a mind - they are not innate concepts that exist independent of our ability to recognise them

I dont understand what you mean. To me everything and person has a patter that does not need to be learned or recgonized. Its not supernatual. All biology, psychology, and physicology. Geology and some anthropology.

I don't believe in God. My life has purpose. Ergo, this argument is false

Another claim. Is there any reason to assume ideas cannot exist without a God?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Circular Reasoning

I tried understanding what this means. We repeat the same thing in a different way?

"The bible isnt true because it said so" type of thing?

Strip my OP. Take out the "word" God.

The mind, universe (real), ideas, creators (I create poetry; jim creates buildings; jans created a throw rug), purpose, all exist.

If they dont, tell me how?

(I just summed it all up as "God" I couldn use Jehosafat. Capanipsal)

The word is not my point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thats all I am saying.

The mug could be--your mind, the universe, you. The mug does not come out of nowhere. So we use already things here to make or create something new (we think its new). So we are creators.

What does that have to do with whether or not a God exists?

Take the word God out. There is a brain and mind. They exist.

Yes, they do. How does their existence demonstrate that a God does?

I dont understand what you mean. To me everything and person has a patter that does not need to be learned or recgonized. Its not supernatual. All biology, psychology, and physicology. Geology and some anthropology.

That's because recognising patters is something the human brain does - it is a result of a quirk of our perception, not an innate facet of reality. It's like saying something is "beautiful" or something is "tasty" - they are descriptions our minds attach to things, but they are not innate facets of those things we are describing. They are not objective.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, they do. How does their existence demonstrate that a God does?

I used word God to describe a series of things (mind, purpose, universe, act of creating) I keep repeating. It is not supernatural.

What does that have to do with whether or not a God exists?

Since God is a word not a being or anything supernatual, God can exist and take any form it likes.

This monotheistic lens is messing up just using the word God as an acronym for what exists.

I know all the atheist minded people want to apart every little thing on these threads. Maybe think about how God is "another word for" mind, purppose, universe, act of creating. When I read christian belief, I look behind the meaning of God as a being, ruler of heavens and earth. Theres a common thread under all that munk. A lot of RF atheistic of mind look at the outside

"How can that proove God exist?" Well, first which God are you talking about?

"Any God" you mean a being, spirit, concept

"You know, God" No I dont know.

Until you can get rid of preconcieved def. Of God, how in the world can anyone see He exists buut using a different way to see His existences is real Without looking specifially at monotheistic lens.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Guys,

Until you can get rid of preconcieved def. of what you think is God and can put yourselves in Any Type of believers shoes, there will always be cherry picking other peoples views.

We will see there is a common link: All Gods (Ill say Zunis) have some role (whether as an actual being Or the role/purpose itself) in our purpose in life.

Unless you are a theist, polytheist, etc...drop the being part; thats not my point.

All Zuni seem to have some relation to the earth. Either creating it (taking already existed things and creating it into something new), being the earth, or the energy behind what makes everything go. (Car cant start without a motor). As such, zuni takes care of (or Is th action of caring) us by creating food. I watch the plants grow. I dont atribute it to a Who or a What. Motors are just that. It takes me from A to B. Nothing fancy

Zuni has some relation to peoples purpose in life. Whether it is a She that gives it or the Zuni IS the purpose itself. It exists.

Zuni could be behind, as commonly believed, our emotions, gut feelings we equate to spirituality, and such. Zuni could actually BE these emotions etc. They exist.

Zuni exist because we are here. Without Gid, gods, jehosaphat, nothing would be here.

God is the absense of nothing.

As long as something exist, God does.

They are not two separate things. Thats a mono-lens. Unless you are a monotheist or polytheist (or whatever exusions you have), drop the lens

 

[leibowde84]

If you separate God from mind, purpose, love, force that createz, then youre right.

I dont believe in an outside creator. Not a being. Thats a monotheistic lens. God is not defined just by that.

But, merely claiming that God is anything that we know exists "prove

I tried understanding what this means. We repeat the same thing in a different way?

"The bible isnt true because it said so" type of thing?

Strip my OP. Take out the "word" God.

The mind, universe (real), ideas, creators (I create poetry; jim creates buildings; jans created a throw rug), purpose, all exist.

If they dont, tell me how?

(I just summed it all up as "God" I couldn use Jehosafat. Capanipsal)

The word is not my point.

You are taking things that exist in reality and assigning them to God. These are merely unsubstantiated assumptions, not showing or proving anything about God. You are merely providing an explanation of what you assume to be God. But, there is no "reasoning" going on here. Just pure speculation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I used word God to describe a series of things (mind, purpose, universe, act of creating) I keep repeating. It is not supernatural.

Then there's no reason for you to use the word God at all. The definition you provided (and the definition most people use, that I am aware of) requires God to be supernatural. There's no point relabelling things and calling them "God", it makes no sense.

Since God is a word not a being or anything supernatual, God can exist and take any form it likes.

If God is nothing but a word, then God can't take "any form it likes" - words refer to specific things. If they don't, then they're completely meaningless. I could call a hippo a goat if I like, but that doesn't change the fact that the word "goat" is meant to refer to something that isn't a hippo. You can't just make up your own definition of words and expect them to make a convincing argument. God is defined as a supernatural, intelligent agency responsible for the creation or maintenance of the world or some aspect of it. If what you're describing doesn't fit that description, there's no point in calling it a God.

This monotheistic lens is messing up just using the word God as an acronym for what exists.

The definition of God provided above doesn't refer only specifically to a monotheistic God.

I know all the atheist minded people want to apart every little thing on these threads. Maybe think about how God is "another word for" mind, purppose, universe, act of creating. When I read christian belief, I look behind the meaning of God as a being, ruler of heavens and earth. Theres a common thread under all that munk. A lot of RF atheistic of mind look at the outside

"How can that proove God exist?" Well, first which God are you talking about?

"Any God" you mean a being, spirit, concept

"You know, God" No I dont know.

Until you can get rid of preconcieved def. Of God, how in the world can anyone see He exists buut using a different way to see His existences is real Without looking specifially at monotheistic lens.

If you don't have a definition of God, you cannot make any claims about Gods purpose, existence, form or anything else about it. Without a working definition, "God" is just a meaningless syllable that you can't make claims about. If you ever feel the need to say "God is X", you should try asking yourself "What does saying 'God is X' do to increase our understanding of God or X?" If the answer is "nothing" (i.e: saying "God is energy" tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of God or nature of energy - energy still functions exactly the same whether you describe it as "God" or not) then you shouldn't bother saying it, because what you are saying is completely void of any actual meaning. If God is just another word for whatever you want it to be, there's no difference between saying "God is energy" and saying "energy is energy". Just use the word we already use and stop trying to clutter it up with pseudo-spiritual nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is like saying, I am speculating on how the moon exists. I am assuming the moon exist because I see it in the sky and know its functions.

How are these false assumptions? If anything, what I am saying is redundant not false.

God is a word. There is nothing behind words until we put meaning to it. God can mean so many different things or people. What I define is God is odviously not how you define God. If thats the case, how can you make sense of what I say going by your definition of God? If He is an all powerful being, this will make sense.

Its all in context.

But, merely claiming that God is anything that we know exists "prove

You are taking things that exist in reality and assigning them to God. These are merely unsubstantiated assumptions, not showing or proving anything about God. You are merely providing an explanation of what you assume to be God. But, there is no "reasoning" going on here. Just pure speculation.

What God are you talking about to proove with substatial evidence? Maybe of we know which God youre talking about, we can be specific.

I am being general with the word. All "gods" ans god-concepts from spiritual and supernatural to earth and energy seem to have some core concepts that make that Concept, being, What or whoever exists.

Our purpose
our mind
our universe
the act of creation
(And others)

There is no specific deity. There is no deity.

What evidence are you asking for and for what?

 

[leibowde84]

That is like saying, I am speculating on how the moon exists. I am assuming the moon exist because I see it in the sky and know its functions.

How are these false assumptions? If anything, what I am saying is redundant not false.

God is a word. There is nothing behind words until we put meaning to it. God can mean so many different things or people. What I define is God is odviously not how you define God. If thats the case, how can you make sense of what I say going by your definition of God? If He is an all powerful being, this will make sense.

Its all in context.



What God are you talking about to proove with substatial evidence? Maybe of we know which God youre talking about, we can be specific.

I am being general with the word. All "gods" ans god-concepts from spiritual and supernatural to earth and energy seem to have some core concepts that make that Concept, being, What or whoever exists.

Our purpose
our mind
our universe
the act of creation
(And others)

There is no specific deity. There is no deity.

What evidence are you asking for and for what?

I'm not asking for any evidence, as I don't think it is possible to prove God's existence. The best we can do is make educated inferences, but they merely end up being beliefs. I was pointing out that you haven't in any way shown that God exists. You have shown merely that purpose, mind, the universe, and creation exist. But, you have not provided any reasoning to support your belief that these things are "God". You just made the assumption and defined the word in that way.

According to your definition, why even have the word "God" if God is merely purpose, mind, universe, etc.? Why wouldn't you just speak of the actual realities?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The definition was in the spoiler. Not everyone sees God as supernatural or even in the super catagory. I just think we are all stuck with that def. The dictionary has mono/poly defin. but it doesnt have room for all thebother just as real definitions that people attribute to the word God.

Then there's no reason for you to use the word God at all. The definition you provided (and the definition most people use, that I am aware of) requires God to be supernatural. There's no point relabelling things and calling them "God", it makes no sense

The word God is misleading. Its commonly refered to the supernatural. Unlike a computer which has a fixed defin. religious words dont. God is a big one. From christian, pagan, atheist, to hindu, bahai, and UU.

Then there's no reason for you to use the word God at all. The definition you provided (and the definition most people use, that I am aware of) requires God to be supernatural. There's no point relabelling things and calling them "God", it makes no sense.


If God is nothing but a word, then God can't take "any form it likes" - words refer to specific things. If they don't, then they're completely meaningless. I could call a hippo a goat if I like, but that doesn't change the fact that the word "goat" is meant to refer to something that isn't a hippo. You can't just make up your own definition of words and expect them to make a convincing argument. God is defined as a supernatural, intelligent agency responsible for the creation or maintenance of the world or some aspect of it. If what you're describing doesn't fit that description, there's no point in calling it a God.


The definition of God provided above doesn't refer only specifically to a monotheistic God.


If you don't have a definition of God, you cannot make any claims about Gods purpose, existence, form or anything else about it. Without a working definition, "God" is just a meaningless syllable that you can't make claims about. If you ever feel the need to say "God is X", you should try asking yourself "What does saying 'God is X' do to increase our understanding of God or X?" If the answer is "nothing" (i.e: saying "God is energy" tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of God or nature of energy - energy still functions exactly the same whether you describe it as "God" or not) then you shouldn't bother saying it, because what you are saying is completely void of any actual meaning. If God is just another word for whatever you want it to be, there's no difference between saying "God is energy" and saying "energy is energy". Just use the word we already use and stop trying to clutter it up with pseudo-spiritual nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

According to your definition, why even have the word "God" if God is merely purpose, mind, universe, etc.? Why wouldn't you just speak of the actual realities?

Its the only word that can wrap up everything in life and how it interacts with us as we with it. I see these definitions, mind-energy-people, etc as a part of the common definition of God regardless if he is supernatual, has a beard, or cross legged, or you even.

Some people use mind-consciousness but I
find that weird. Plus, talking to life as if it were human is odd too.

I know God exists. Those things I listed are Gos. They exist=God does. The def. of God in my OP and in general does not need to be a deity, supernatural, have long blond hair, or even have a hammer in one hand.

Redundant, maybe. False assumptions and curcular argument, I dont see how.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The definition was in the spoiler. Not everyone sees God as supernatural or even in the super catagory.

Which is why when they bring up those such definitions, it is always worth them giving their own, specific definition of God so that we can work off it. If, however, they say "I don't define God as supernatural, I define God as energy", my response would be "You're an atheist, then", because they aren't actually saying anything other than "I believe energy exists" and "I arbitrarily choose to use the word 'God' as a synonym for energy". It's meaningless.

I just think we are all stuck with that def. The dictionary has mono/poly defin. but it doesnt have room for all thebother just as real definitions that people attribute to the word God.

Complaining about the definition of God is as silly as complaining about the definition of spoons. Words refer to specific things, and if you're making claims about something that isn't that specific thing the word refers to then why are you using the word? What's the point of calling something God if it doesn't fit the definition? It's as silly as referring to a knife as a spoon, and then arguing that the commonly accepted definition of "spoon" is too narrow for your purposes. The WORD can't be narrow - it's just a moniker we apply to a specific thing. It's not like the actual object of a spoon is in any way restricted by the definition of the word. If you're going to make an argument about the existence of God, you can't just make up your own definition of God any more than I can say "I can prove spoons have brains!" and then saying "I define spoons as human beings, therefore spoons have brains". It's just inane.

The word God is misleading.

Words are not misleading. Only their application is. Again, see above. This is no different to complaining about the definition of "spoon" and referring to that as misleading.

Its commonly refered to the supernatural. Unlike a computer which has a fixed defin. religious words dont. God is a big one. From christian, pagan, atheist, to hindu, bahai, and UU.

You've already given a fixed definition that fits almost every conception of a God that people generally use. What is the issue with it?

 

[leibowde84]

Its the only word that can wrap up everything in life and how it interacts with us as we with it. I see these definitions, mind-energy-people, etc as a part of the common definition of God regardless if he is supernatual, has a beard, or cross legged, or you even.

Some people use mind-consciousness but I
find that weird. Plus, talking to life as if it were human is odd too.

I know God exists. Those things I listed are Gos. They exist=God does. The def. of God in my OP and in general does not need to be a deity, supernatural, have long blond hair, or even have a hammer in one hand.

Redundant, maybe. False assumptions and curcular argument, I dont see how.

It is circular reasoning because you are assuming that these things we know exist are part of God and, thus, God exists. I could say God is life. Life exists so God must exist. This doesnt actually prove anything. Aquinas proof for God employs the same logical fallacy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess people (in general) who grown up around the word God and know the meaning behind it without it being a person ..seeing beyond written definition...can apply God to any belief lf theirs that matches the "commom thread" behind the "God language."

I dont refer to life as God. That is not my personal belief.

We complain, or debate, about the definition of God all the time. RF does it hourly. They arent debating the word itseld but the meaning people apply to it.

Which is why when they bring up those such definitions, it is always worth them giving their own, specific definition of God so that we can work off it. If, however, they say "I don't define God as supernatural, I define God as energy", my response would be "You're an atheist, then", because they aren't actually saying anything other than "I believe energy exists" and "I arbitrarily choose to use the word 'God' as a synonym for energy". It's meaningless.


Complaining about the definition of God is as silly as complaining about the definition of spoons. Words refer to specific things, and if you're making claims about something that isn't that specific thing the word refers to then why are you using the word? What's the point of calling something God if it doesn't fit the definition? It's as silly as referring to a knife as a spoon, and then arguing that the commonly accepted definition of "spoon" is too narrow for your purposes. The WORD can't be narrow - it's just a moniker we apply to a specific thing. It's not like the actual object of a spoon is in any way restricted by the definition of the word. If you're going to make an argument about the existence of God, you can't just make up your own definition of God any more than I can say "I can prove spoons have brains!" and then saying "I define spoons as human beings, therefore spoons have brains". It's just inane.


Words are not misleading. Only their application is. Again, see above. This is no different to complaining about the definition of "spoon" and referring to that as misleading.


You've already given a fixed definition that fits almost every conception of a God that people generally use. What is the issue with it?

 

[leibowde84]

I guess people (in general) who grown up around the word God and know the meaning behind it without it being a person ..seeing beyond written definition...can apply God to any belief lf theirs that matches the "commom thread" behind the "God language."

I dont refer to life as God. That is not my personal belief.

We complain, or debate, about the definition of God all the time. RF does it hourly. They arent debating the word itseld but the meaning people apply to it.

What you are missing is your supporting evidence for why God is those things. You haven't supported this at all.