Does a god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No? I wasn't asked a question, and I didn't give an answer? I f that's what you're saying I'd disagree, but at the minute I'm not sure what your point is, sorry?

Too cryptic, sorry. Seriously just tell me what you're trying to say, and stop trying to lead me there.

My points are these in the end:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
https://iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/ (that connects to your words as knowledge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches (that is different opinions on what science is)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see so many arguements here about a god existing or a god not existing, show me your evidence a god does exist and show me evidence a god doesn't exist, etc.

Its all pretty pointless being a god exists by having belief/faith or a god doesn't exist by not having belief/faith.

I myself do not know if a god or any god does exist. A god could have set everything into motion and has since let everything from the universe to life evolve or it all could have naturally happened. If you know which, show me undeniable evidence of it.

There is no evidence to show a god does or doesn't exist. If a god does exist that would be great but if a god doesn't exist, does it really matter.

Asking for evidence of a god existing or not existing is pretty ignorant being evidence for neither exists.

If you believe in a god thats great.
If you don't believe in a god thats great.
Both are personal choices and evidence isn't involved.

We are each our own self and have our own beliefs which is what keeps us from being like robots.

What is gained or lost from arguing about personal beliefs besides nothing?

In my opinion I see it as believers trying to get others to believe and critisize others for not believing(you are going to hell) and non-believers trying to criticize others for believing and argue(you are uneducated and don't understand science).

Thats my opinion and I could be wrong.

Sounds like you're trying to spin a lack of evidence into something like "both sides have equal merit."

Considering that a lack of evidence is entirely consistent with positions like "I see no way that it would even be possible for gods to exist," I'm not sure ehat justification you have for the approach you're taking.

Are you trying to say that both sides have equal merit? If so what's your justification?

As for evidence, one compelling piece of evidence is that - as far as we can tell - every observation ever made is entirely consistent with the idea of no gods existing.

Look at this through an inductive reasoning lens and it becomes strong support for the conclusion that no gods exist.

Of course, inductive reasoning doesn't yield perfect certainty, which means there will always be a gap where theists can claim their unfalsifiable gods live. Still, this isn't nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like you're trying to spin a lack of evidence into something like "both sides have equal merit."

Considering that a lack of evidence is entirely consistent with positions like "I see no way that it would even be possible for gods to exist," I'm not sure ehat justification you have for the approach you're taking.

Are you trying to say that both sides have equal merit? If so what's your justification?

As for evidence, one compelling piece of evidence is that - as far as we can tell - every observation ever made is entirely consistent with the idea of no gods existing.

Look at this through an inductive reasoning lens and it becomes strong support for the conclusion that no gods exist.

Of course, inductive reasoning doesn't yield perfect certainty, which means there will always be a gap where theists can claim their unfalsifiable gods live. Still, this isn't nothing.

I have found no way to do that kind of merit as not an opinion or what not.

 

[Polymath257]

I see so many arguements here about a god existing or a god not existing, show me your evidence a god does exist and show me evidence a god doesn't exist, etc.

Its all pretty pointless being a god exists by having belief/faith or a god doesn't exist by not having belief/faith.

I myself do not know if a god or any god does exist. A god could have set everything into motion and has since let everything from the universe to life evolve or it all could have naturally happened. If you know which, show me undeniable evidence of it.

There is no evidence to show a god does or doesn't exist. If a god does exist that would be great but if a god doesn't exist, does it really matter.

Asking for evidence of a god existing or not existing is pretty ignorant being evidence for neither exists.

If you believe in a god thats great.
If you don't believe in a god thats great.
Both are personal choices and evidence isn't involved.

We are each our own self and have our own beliefs which is what keeps us from being like robots.

What is gained or lost from arguing about personal beliefs besides nothing?

In my opinion I see it as believers trying to get others to believe and critisize others for not believing(you are going to hell) and non-believers trying to criticize others for believing and argue(you are uneducated and don't understand science).

Thats my opinion and I could be wrong.

Before even asking the question of existence, the first step is to define what you mean by the term 'god'.

Does it mean a creator of the universe?

Does it mean an all powerful being?

Does it mean a morality giver?

Does it imply a supernatural?

Could it just be a super powerful, but ordinary life form?

Is it only/primarily interested in this particular planet and life on it?

Could it simply be 'the universe'? Or 'the laws of physics'?

Does it have a gender?

And a long list of other things people have identified as 'god-like' properties.

Only after it is clarified exactly what we are talking about is the question of existence even meaningful.

So, if you define 'god' to be 'the universe', then I believe 'god' exists. If you define 'god' to be 'the intelligent creator of the universe', then I do not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Before even asking the question of existence, the first step is to define what you mean by the term 'god'.

Does it mean a creator of the universe?

Does it mean an all powerful being?

Does it mean a morality giver?

Does it imply a supernatural?

Could it just be a super powerful, but ordinary life form?

Is it only/primarily interested in this particular planet and life on it?

Could it simply be 'the universe'? Or 'the laws of physics'?

Does it have a gender?

And a long list of other things people have identified as 'god-like' properties.

Only after it is clarified exactly what we are talking about is the question of existence even meaningful.

So, if you define 'god' to be 'the universe', then I believe 'god' exists. If you define 'god' to be 'the intelligent creator of the universe', then I do not.

Or I could be of a different opinion about meaningful and thus we don't agree. So who is wrong?

 

[Aštra’el]

Does Mario exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does Mario exist?

View attachment 57065

Well, that is philosophy in the end and that includes the word "exist". But no, there is no strong objective answer to that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So, if you define 'god' to be 'the universe', then I believe 'god' exists. If you define 'god' to be 'the intelligent creator of the universe', then I do not.

Perfect and simple definition between the 2

 

[Sheldon]

My points are these in the end:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
https://iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/ (that connects to your words as knowledge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches (that is different opinions on what science is)

What has that to do with the question I was asked in the OP, or my response? I think I'm either having a stroke, or you're going for some sort of record for the number of non sequiturs in a single thread.

I don't think I'm having a stroke?

FYI, I don't believe I've mentioned science in this entire thread, other than to point this out to you obviously? So why you keep referencing science still isn't clear to me sorry?

 

[F1fan]

Or how physicalist, materialists, objective real naturalists and so on trap themselves.

Yeah, it's all those errors of pointing out facts and reason that are so embarrassing.

 

[F1fan]

I don't understand sorry.

Again I was asked to demsonrate evidence for the non existence of something, and again I'm not sure non existent things leave evidence, quite the opposite. Thus the question seems logically unsound to me, bordering on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Right, how does someone prove the non-existence of something not known to exist?

Many theists seem to ride the wave of popular religious belief as if that pattern of human behavior is sufficient to assume belief in a supernatural is the default assumption.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Its all pretty pointless being a god exists by having belief/faith or a god doesn't exist by not having belief/faith.

But a great many of the proponents of God's existence claim that His existence is within some form of reality... not just in their minds. And they want you to toe a line they think God has drawn in the sand. This is the fact of how a great many believers operate. And those that DON'T operate that way? I don't even know who they are or what they believe, because they don't throw it in my face! They default get a free pass from any and all scrutiny or challenge of their ideas, because they aren't sharing them in the same way as these others.

I myself do not know if a god or any god does exist. A god could have set everything into motion and has since let everything from the universe to life evolve or it all could have naturally happened. If you know which, show me undeniable evidence of it.

I ultimately don't know whether or not a God exists either. But considering the idea of "God" with no evidence, doesn't it seem like a pretty arbitrary thing? I mean, there are other stories that human beings have come to, other than one that starts "First God did [X]...". For example:

A cosmic egg floated within the timeless void, containing the opposing forces of yin and yang. After eons of incubation, the first being, Pan-gu emerged. The heavy parts (yin) of the egg drifted downwards, forming the earth.

The "cosmic egg" started it all... no mention of where it came from or why. So, you see, positing a "God" is somewhat arbitrary. Why not something else? Why not something without intelligence or feelings? Why not an inanimate process? Why not some cosmic "fog" that spills into the void and begins amassing and coalescing into "matter?" Without evidence, how do ANY of these ideas withstand scrutiny at all?

And with respect to our current situation, as you have already spoken of, many people do not see this idea of "God" jiving with what we can experience and witness going on within the part of the universe we have scrutinized or witnessed. There just seem to be a whole lot of processes that just go about their business changing and re-ordering the matter present here. And since all that seems to do everything autonomously, it certainly does make one wonder. Does there have to be a "creator?" Isn't any idea I ultimately rest on for that "creator" just ENTIRELY ARBITRARY if I can't find actual evidence to present that gives it better definition? And if you admit that it is entirely arbitrary... then it is just as good as the next explanation. Therefore one need not adopt ANY of the explanations until such time as evidence warrants such an adoption.

There is no evidence to show a god does or doesn't exist. If a god does exist that would be great but if a god doesn't exist, does it really matter.

Apparently it doesn't matter - because things just keep on keeping on despite a complete lack of worthwhile evidence for the proposition of God. Except... oh... that's right... there are A BUNCH of people who just can't stop talking about their ideas on the subject as if they were "truth." That's right. Almost forgot that part. No I didn't. That's called sarcasm.

Asking for evidence of a god existing or not existing is pretty ignorant being evidence for neither exists.

This statement is actually somewhat ignorant itself. Do you know, conclusively, that there is no evidence for the existence of God? Do you know, conclusively, that there is no evidence for the non-existence of God? I don't claim to know that for sure. You must have some pretty good evidence that points to there being no evidence, eh?

Thats my opinion and I could be wrong.

Based on your mis-step I pointed out in the last paragraph, I would say that at the very least you simply aren't approaching these ideas quite as unbiased as you'd like to pretend you are. Unless you truly DO know somehow that there exists absolutely no evidence for (or against) the proposition "God exists." If you can demonstrate how you know that to be true I'd love to bear witness to your demonstration.

 

[F1fan]

Exist, how? God clearly exists as an idea, and as an ideal.

So God exists in the minds of mortals. Anywhere else?

And that ideal clearly has a very real and physical presence in the world through the actions of those who embody it.

From feeding the hungry to enslaving people of color to flying hijacked planes into buildings.

But does God exist as a physical phenomenon apart from the mind of humans? That depends on how we are defining God, and how we are defining the boundaries of existence.

So by defining God any certain way we can create God. Wouldn't that make the mortal mind the one true God?

Which drives us into the realm of theology, and philosophy. Which are realms of thought that a lot of people are not well versed in. Yet opinions abound.

So essentially there is no arguable truth that extends beyond the self.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What has that to do with the question I was asked in the OP, or my response? I think I'm either having a stroke, or you're going for some sort of record for the number of non sequiturs in a single thread.

I don't think I'm having a stroke?

FYI, I don't believe I've mentioned science in this entire thread, other than to point this out to you obviously? So why you keep referencing science still isn't clear to me sorry?

So what do you mean by evidence and all those other words you keep using?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, it's all those errors of pointing out facts and reason that are so embarrassing.

Yeah, embarrassing is science and an objective and reason fact.

 

[epronovost]

The shortest answer is no; God(s) doesn't/don't exist(s). The long answer will vary depending on how god is defined and what ''exist'' is supposed to mean in that specific context.

 

[F1fan]

I had belief but no experience or relationship till God revealed Himself then I had experience, proof and a relationship with God.
I can tell people about this but found everyone has to experience and get their own proof and relationship with God.

What form does God take when it relates to you?

What test in reality did you use to discern it was an actual God and not an idea of God you created in your mind?

I see evidence for God everywhere but was blind to it before.

What special powers do you now have that enables you to see what was invisible before?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, embarrassing is science and an objective and reason fact.

Exactly, what has science ever done for anyone?

 

[epronovost]

Exactly, what has science ever done for anyone?

Technically, many, many, MANY things some good, others bad.

 

[F1fan]

The shortest answer is no; God(s) doesn't/don't exist(s). The long answer will vary depending on how god is defined and what ''exist'' is supposed to mean in that specific context.

I remember the first time I heard someone refer to nature as being god, and I thought it was a sort of act of rebranding, and rather absurd. The same thing applies to those who call energy god.

My immediate thoughts are why are people trying to overlay religious assumptions and ideas onto what exists as the material of the universe. What motive is there, and what is the intention?