Proof of the existence of God

First thing you should do is stop with this ''your God'' stuff. I'm not discussing God from any particular religious pov. You wouldn't say ''your gravity'', or ''your theory of evolution. The reason being there's is documentation out there which we can draw information from regardless of whether we accept it in full, or not.

If I was in your position, I would with what you are prepared to accept, then find out how God = unverse, can lead to God = original cause/creator.
You know that it's not everything about neo darwinism I accept, but I will try to explain it from a evolutionary point of view (I know I'm not particularly scientific). None of you try to comprehend what is being said in scriptures, unless of course it is something that can be used to discredit the idea of God being real. That being said, it becomes a futile exercise trying to explain anything past the basic definition of God, to you, because you simple haven't done any real research into it. It wouldn't surprise if you think it doesn't any study or research.

So I'm happy with the fact that you are prepared to accept God = universe, because it is a start, and you have to start from somewhere.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The definition of God DOES exist, otherwise there would be no theists or atheists.
The definition of God, at it's core, states that God is the origin of the material world. Now I'm not asserting that it is true or false. Like you, I may have my beliefs, but they cannot determine whether or not the definition is true, to the point where we can mutually agree. But the definition is there regardless. Do you agree with that?

What is it about the definition of God that leads you to accept that this world would be the same if God did NOT exist? Or is this another way of asserting atheism?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry about the dodgy spelling, and omission of words. I am typing from a small phone.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except if the question is "Do you believe in God?" apparently.

 

I'm simply curious as to why that question is relevant.

jan.

 

This is a thread about God that you're constantly posting in.

Why would you ever think it wasn't relevant?

 

I AM talking about God.

jan.

 

First, Jan does believe in God: "If anything, the only proof I am burdened with is proof that I believe in God, as that is the only definate claim I have made.
One does not need to imagine a world with no God, we simply wouldn't exist. Unless of course you create a God in your mind which is not the original cause." (post #666).
But unfortunately Jan still doesn't recognise the second statement (as worded) as being an actual claim that God exists, so when there is a denial of such a claim, Jan is in fact being inconsistent.

Second, Jan's posts are riddled with inconsistencies. Note how in the above Jan tries to name the only definite claim made, yet in post #732: "The only thing I need to provide proof for is the claim that God is defined as the original cause/creator, and other attributes I may have mentioned. Because that is what I;ve claimed."

But there are further inconsistencies...
"The definition of God DOES exist, otherwise there would be no theists or atheists." (post #842) - implying that one can only be a theist with a definition of God.
Yet shortly before:
"Defining anything at all is not a prerequisite for believing in that thing." (post #809) - implying that one can be a theist without a definition of God.

But Jan also manages to be inconsistent within the same sentence: "This is where you keep going wrong. God isn't just a theory, God is the original cause everything, if you read up about Him (note I'm not claiming that as fact)" (post #702). So clearly Jan works on the premise that as long as you disclaim everything at the end, you haven't actually claimed anything at all in everything you wrote before. It's no different than saying "You're five-foot eight and I'm six-foot one (note I'm not saying I'm taller than you)". Maybe Jan doesn't accept that by stating that something "isn't just a theory" is effectively the same as making a claim it is fact.

You know, all of these last c.10 pages of nonsense could have been avoided had Jan said, back in post #662: "If God is necessary then A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God."
And since Jan has subsequently acknowledged that "Defining God is not an assumption that God exists." (post #732), noone would have taken that statement from post #662 to be the implicit claim it was/is, and which Jan has subsequently been trying to deny making.


Lastly:

There doesn't need to be anything about the definition as if God does not exist then the definition is merely a definition relating to a fiction - much like Superman being defined as a Kryptonian who can fly and shoot heat rays from his eyes is merely the definition of a fiction: the definition exists whether Superman actually exists or not.
You can't seem to escape from an idea of definitions only being applicable to something that exists, despite your comments to the contrary previously. If you can honestly imagine definitions applying to non-existent things, but you can't imagine God as not existing (while being defined as "the original cause") without concluding that nothing would exist - then you are stuck with an a priori assumption of God's existence due to the definition, whether you recognise it or not.
If you sincerely think otherwise then you should be able to understand that the actuality of a definition only applies if the thing to which the definition applies actually exists. If God does not exist then while the definition applied to God remains, it is simply not part of our current reality, due to God not being part of our reality.

So let's address what everyone else here seems to perceive as your a priori assumption: Do you believe God is necessary? If so (and based on everything you have written before I'm fairly certain you do) other than because of the definition of God, what leads you to this conclusion?

 

If I have to give a Yes or No answer, then: yes, I personally agree. With the following side-notes: It requires an open and objective mind (I would almost say: atheist mind, in the classical sense of the word) to realize this. If you say to a Christian that their God is in essence the same as Allah I don’t believe many will agree. Not to mention what the average Muslim will think about this. This example shows that “THE definition” of God for an average Christian is different than from an average Muslim, or at least they think it is different. I believe they are wrong to think they are different, but that is not my point. My point is 1: to be careful to talk about “THE definition” and assume that the person you are talking to has the same definition (chances are that your definition is not the same as mine) and 2: there is no single definition where many people would agree on.

I believe I have analytical mind and in general have a good understand of many scientific fields to be able to make sense of everything I see in this world and this universe without the need to have anything to be created by someone or something. I believe that would make me an atheist in the classical sense of the word but I do not consider myself an atheist. I admit I am not religious but I do believe God exists. I just have a different definition of what God is and that is nothing like “THE definition” you are talking about.

 

I understand how God can be seen as a fictional character. I understand that for most of the people on here, that God IS a fictional character, or as close as you can get to one (without present evidence of their choosing). This is the reason why I do not present God as a fact, but as an idea. This is place where we can all meet.

The point is, we already live in a world where it stated as fact (by some) that God does not exist, so to imagine such a place wouldn't take much effort, if any. The world in which it is a fact that God does not exist, is a world where the definition of God exists. It is the definition of God, that make the idea of a God that does not exist, possible. So how is it possible that a world filled with the mindset of strong atheism, conclude that it is a fact that God does not exist, if they don't tackle the definition of God.

jan.

 

Well, let's gloss over all the times you do implicitly claim God as a fact... where you seem incapable of actually considering God simply as an idea, as a theory, where you say quite clearly that "God isn't just a theory" etc. You do not help yourself in this regard in trying to get your views across.
And I wouldn't say most here think God is a fictional character. From experience, most here are agnostic atheists - and thus make no conclusion on the matter of God existing or not. We can all agree that God, as a minimum, is a concept - but the reality of that concept is for some a given, for some it is believed in, and some believe in the opposite - but us agnostic atheists don't believe in either. Is God a fiction? I don't know, but I am not aware of any evidence/knowledge that suggests he is more.

Strong atheists don't conclude that it is a fact that God does not exist any more than a theist claims that it is a fact that God does exist. Are you claiming the latter?
Strong atheists simply believe that God does not exist - although undoubtedly some will make claims beyond that position of belief.
They believe what they do because God, as defined as the original cause, is not shown to be necessary or to exist: as long as there is the possibility of the universe existing without an "original cause" then Strong atheists are free to believe in the non-existence of God, and us agnostic atheists will simply not have a belief.

And if THE definition of God was simply "original cause" with no other baggage associated with it, then it really wouldn't be too much of an issue. Something as simply defined as the "original cause" is not something worthy of praise, of religion, of much thought at all, if you ask me. It is a rather trivial matter: either we are the result of an original cause or we are the result of an eternity of always existing. Either way, we are where we are, doing what we do.

But is that all there is to THE definition of God? No, this would be just one attribute. As soon as you start bringing in notions of revelation, of direct contact, of evidence (scientific or otherwise) etc, then you bring in more than just that simple definition. And it is likely (for I can not speak for them directly) that strong atheists believe in the non-existence of a God complete with some/many/all the other attributes.

 

You know what I mean when I use the term ''God''. We've been over this countless times.
If you keep insisting that there is no difference between the original cause/creator, and a being whose designation to be in charge of the sea, or the air. Or a being that creates or seeds a new race, then we have agree to disagree.

If these beings are credited with being the original cause/creator, then we're defining God, because there can only be one. That is what is known as God. There can't be anything outside of God, if God exists.

Fine, but if it goes outside of what commonly accepted, existing knowledge of evolution has to be the basis of their theory.

Religion is, by nature, personal. It is also cultural, and societal. It isn't just simply a case of going to church or temple.

Also, the particular sects and denominations will undoubtedly be characterized by its leaders. So like any other system, you are not going to get a one size fits all situation.

I think you refer to the information that they have gleaned from historians, archaeology, philosophy, and so on. I don't think they have an idea of what God is, outside of a mental image, which is probably why don't believe. That mental image does not show up in the world, nor is there evidence of it.
I don't think their knowledge of God and God based religion is deep at all, but they have a good fund of academic knowledge.

So why do you not know the difference between gods and God, regardless of belief or not?

Okay try and comprehend what God means, and you have to actually take in what you're reading or hearing. Suspend what you know, or think you know, about God, and just accept what is being said or written. Now, this does NOT mean you believe, or pretend to believe what you're reading or hearing, you simply accept it, just they way you accept anything else.

Your first instruction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Hopefully you will forgive me for not trusting your analysis of my comments, given that you are prone to making stuff up to suit your arguments. But let's stick to this thread to avoid unnecessary confusion.

But for now, in your lives, God does not exist. Right?

But for imaginary purposes, I think strong atheism is the closest we're going to get to a world where God does not exist.

That is the common universal understanding of God. All God based religions agree upon that. Atheist do not accept that, which forms a large part of the basis of their reasoning about God.

We're not discussing religion, that is a different topic.

If its such a trivial matter, then why do atheists campaign to remove prayer from school, the term Christmas from Christmas Holiday?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That may not be the only definition of God, but it is the one we all comprehend without argument. It is the one thing that makes God, God.

jan.

 

"Prone to making stuff up".... such as...? Evidence please, or retract the accusation. Isolated examples that we are all guilty of through momentary lack of attention do not amount to "prone".

Practically speaking, correct. Intellectually speaking, he may or may not exist; I can't say.

In as much as one could say theism is the closest we're going to get to a world where God does exist.

Some atheists accept that there may be an Original Cause - but they don't call it God, nor would they tack on any of the other attributes that religions or scriptures assign to God. Some simply refer to it as a mystery as to what the Original Cause is, other than being what it is. And others might not accept that we have to have an Original Cause. Most would simply say they don't know how we came about.
Either way, they do not have believe in God as defined by one, many or all of the religions.

It is unavoidable, given that that is where THE definition of God comes from: Scripture is only held as such due to the religions that make them sacred.

Because those notions (prayer, Christmas etc) go unquestionably further than simply saying "God is the original cause". It brings religion into the debate - which from your previous sentence you do not want to address here. You can't have it both ways.

So now you admit that there ARE different definitions???
FFS, you are impossible to discuss with, given the ease at which you contradict yourself... to wit:
"The definition of God DOES exist" Post #842
"The definition I gave definition of God is THE definition. You, me, and everyone in this thread knows this as fact. Get over it.
All other concepts of God are simply different aspects of this Supreme being." Post #787
"God as original cause/creator, is not my definition. It is THE definition. If you don't accept that, then you are delusional." Post #764

 

You do it all the time, I've given you examples of it, even in this thread. So I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth in threads to prove it to you yet again .

The practical comes first, as it pertains to moment to moment reality. So in reality God does not exist for you or other atheists. So when you imagine a world where God does not exist, you are effectively explaining your own world. Hardly imagination.

It's not theism that asserts that God exists. God is a part of our existence, even if we don't believe. As far as we know there has always been something like God in the minds of men. There are no societies which do not know something about God, or that does not have to make law or proclamations to separate themselves from God' law. The legal system in England, and probably USA, have their basis in God' law (biblical).
Theism and atheism are by-products of an ancient, established system which goes much further than simply believing or not believing.

It doesn't matter what they call it. The name is a description. If this being ticks all these boxes then that being is the meaning of God, the most obvious being the original cause/creator.

And yet theists are not allowed to quote scripture.

But to respond to your point, people don't believe in God purely based on what they read in the scripture. Anymore than people develop a love of ice cream because they read the ingredients somewhere.

This does nothing to answer the question.
Try again.

People do define God differently, but God is always going to be God, ie, the original cause/creator. That's how we know that they're defining God.

jan.

 

Again with the accusation, Jan. You have pointed out one occurrence in this thread. One. With me writing "initial" instead of "original" - although the meaning as used is the same - which was also picked up by someone as you nitpicking.
So I'll take your unwillingness to support your accusations as there being insufficient evidence.

The practical I began with was belief in God. Then the intellectual kicked in. And from there a change in the practical. As and when the intellectual requires belief in God in order to make sense of the practical, the practical will incorporate it. Until then, why should the practical change?
But your argument is flawed - as I can also imagine a world where God does exist. Which should be no different from you being able to imagine a world where he does not, right?
But you can't seem to do that, can you, as you are stuck with this a priori assumption of God's existence.

In the same way that it's not atheism that asserts that God does not exist.

Wow. And there you were previously trying to deny that you claim God exists. Are you going to deny you have said it now?
Hey, everyone, Jan has finally claimed God exists!

However, it is just as valid to say that "God is not part of our existence (other than as a concept), even if we do believe". I.e. your argument can be reversed and is just as valid. That is the way with circular arguments.

And this proves what, exactly? That God exists? Or that God as a concept exists, albeit a concept that has permeated human society from an early age? The latter, yes, absolutely. The former? Not at all.
It is thus rather irrelevant to the discussion, as we're not discussing the existence of God as a concept, but "Proof of the existence of God" (as the thread title says). So anything that only speaks to the existence of God as a concept is irrelevant. Even you should be able to see that!

The point is that God is not just the original cause... but a whole host of other attributes as well. That's like me looking at a car and saying I like it's colour, and you trying to take it to mean I like the car.
IF God was just "the original cause" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as God simply wouldn't be a matter of such vast debate. It possibly wouldn't be praised or worshipped in great quantity at all (I say possibly as cults can arise that worship many things). It would just be a mystery - and understood as such. I guess until someone claims to have had some revelation - at which time they implicitly claim of God the ability to provide revelation - and thus God moves beyond just being "the original cause"... etc.

You can quote it, but to accept it as truth on the basis that it is scripture would be to do so with entirely circular reasoning.

I never said that was why they believed. I said that discussion of religion was unavoidable due to THE definition of God being found in scripture, which is only held as such due to the religions that make them sacred.

It answers the question entirely: why do atheists campaign to remove prayer from school, the term Christmas from Christmas Holiday?... if some atheists do it is because those things are aspects of religion - and some would like freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion.
Why do you think this does not answer the question you raised?
Do you think those things are somehow not matters of religion?

Well, thank you for finally clearing up that mess, that yes, people do define God differently. Despite your protestations previously.
Hey, everyone, Jan has now also agreed that people do define God differently.

Maybe things can move on.

 

I didn't say that. Yet another example of you making stuff up to agree with your points.
God is a part of our existence whether we believe he exists or not.

Some will say that God is impersonal, and some will say that God is personal. Some will define God as formless being, some define him as having a body. There are quite a few definitions floating around, but every definition has its basis within THE definition of God. That is how you know they're defining God.

jan.