Proof of the existence of God

[Sarkus]

We are discussing God, some claim He is real, some claim He isn't. Whichever way you look at it God is important, and affects our lives.

First it would help if you were more precise in your responses: we are discussing the concept of God whose existence in reality is not yet established within this discussion. There is no a priori assumption of existence here. Please do not bring any to the table, explicit or implicit (as you have done thus far). When you start saying "God is a part of our existence whether we believe he exists or not" there is the implicit claim within there that God exists; not just the concept of God, but God. You undoubtedly don't recognise the implicit claim, and you may not have intended it, but it is there. And it is not just me recognising it.
So please help yourself, Jan, and be more precise in what you say, so that you get across what you want to say but don't end up implying that which you did not intend.

Whether God actually exists, to the point where everyone in the world accept His actual existence, is a different matter, and is simply fuel for another discussion, where he is, yet again, the subject matter.

Second, the subject of THIS thread, lest you have forgotten, is "Proof of the existence of God"... and generally a proof is that which leads people to accept what has been proven. So it is not "fuel for another discussion" but THIS discussion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

First it would help if you were more precise in your responses: we are discussing the concept of God whose existence in reality is not yet established within this discussion.

Whose reality?

There is no a priori assumption of existence here. Please do not bring any to the table, explicit or implicit (as you have done thus far).

That's the problem Sarkus, I haven't claimed that God exists, in this thread. I've shown that I haven't, so there is nowhere to go in this discussion. It is clear that you need me to make a claim of God' existence, and if I don't, you're going to say I did anyway.

So please help yourself, Jan, and be more precise in what you say, so that you get across what you want to say but don't end up implying that which you did not intend.

I am precise in what I say. God exists, in some form or other. We live in a world where the majority believes in God, and some other don't. It all revolves around God, so regardless of belief God exists, or we wouldn't be wasting our time with these long discussions.

Second, the subject of THIS thread, lest you have forgotten, is "Proof of the existence of God"... and generally a proof is that which leads people to accept what has been proven. So it is not "fuel for another discussion" but THIS discussion.

In order to prove something exists, you need to have a definition of that thing.
So unless we have a definition, there's is no hope of proving anything. It seems I'm the only one concerned with this. Everyone else seems content with just using the term ''God'', without knowledge of what God means.

But as soon as I move towards comprehending who and what God is, I am charged with claiming that God actually exist, and am incapable of dissociating myself from that idea.

You and others on here, are not concerned with trying to find proof of God's existence.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

That's the problem Sarkus, I haven't claimed that God exists, in this thread.

I am precise in what I say. God exists

You believe in God, apparently, even though you refuse to admit having that belief and constantly dodge answering that question. If you believe in God then you're claiming that God exists.

And oh look, you also constantly contradict yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You believe in God, apparently, even though you refuse to admit having that belief and constantly dodge answering that question. If you believe in God then you're claiming that God exists.

And oh look, you also constantly contradict yourself.

I'm saying I haven't made that claim, so you should work with what you have, not infer something that is of no importance to the discussion.
What is the point of me denying that I never claimed the existence of God. If I want to make that claim, then I will make it. But I didn't make that claim. So why can't you work with that? Why is me making that claim so important to you?

I may believe in God, but as a human being, I can be objective. I can have a discussion without having to use my personal beliefs as the basis of that discussion. In this case that is what I have done.

How is it possible to imagine something specific (as was asked) without having a definition of that thing? If we can imagine anything we like, and call it God, then why ask us to specifically imagine 'God'.


jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Whose reality?

The one that holds true for everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

That's the problem Sarkus, I haven't claimed that God exists, in this thread. I've shown that I haven't, so there is nowhere to go in this discussion. It is clear that you need me to make a claim of God' existence, and if I don't, you're going to say I did anyway.

You HAVE claimed it. It is a clear logical implication as explained to you on numerous occasions. It is your subsequent and continued denial that is frustrating. Everyone apart from you has seen that you have claimed it... and that you have subsequently denied claiming it.
It's pathetic. You seem to think if something is not explicitly stated then it isn't stated, and that we're not allowed to follow valid and sound logical reasoning to identify your implicit claims?

I am precise in what I say.

Au contraire, as shown with the examples of inconsistencies previously highlighted.

God exists, in some form or other. We live in a world where the majority believes in God, and some other don't. It all revolves around God, so regardless of belief God exists, or we wouldn't be wasting our time with these long discussions.

Again with the inconsistencies of your posts:
You have previously stated, which started this whole mess: "A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God." Now, if we all admit that God exists in some form or other, the only way would be to include in that "some form or other" the notion that God is simply a concept, albeit defined as "Original Cause", but simply a concept nonetheless.
But your words: "A world with no God, means no ability to imagine,..." does not fit with this... because if God is just a concept then a world with no such concept does NOT mean that there is no ability to imagine. Thus you are claiming in that original post (#662) that God is more than just a concept. You even say in another post (#702): "This is where you keep going wrong. God isn't just a theory, God is the original cause everything".
QED - you claim one thing in one post, deny it in another, change it in yet another.
Inconsistency upon inconsistency; imprecision upon imprecision.

In order to prove something exists, you need to have a definition of that thing.

Indeed. And we're working with "God is the Original Cause" - after all, if you can't prove the single attribute that you claim makes God God, then what hope have you got.

So unless we have a definition, there's is no hope of proving anything. It seems I'm the only one concerned with this. Everyone else seems content with just using the term ''God'', without knowledge of what God means.

Not true. You have insisted upon the definition, and we're rumbling along with it. Where's the issue with that?

But as soon as I move towards comprehending who and what God is, I am charged with claiming that God actually exist, and am incapable of dissociating myself from that idea.

Because of the imprecision of your wording that leads (albeit unintentionally by yourself, it seems) to such logical implications. If you want to avoid those implications then improve the precision of what you say so as to avoid it. Simply denying it doesn't alter that you did claim it. And you have not shown how the logical deduction is flawed - you have merely bleated "you're wrong" or words to that effect.

You and others on here, are not concerned with trying to find proof of God's existence.

Again not true. I would think it a Nobel winning achievement to be able to prove that God exists. But if your starting point is that God is the "Original Cause" you surely need to show that such a cause is a necessity.
So let's start there. If you can't show that an Original Cause is a necessity, what hope have you of proving that there was one?

 

[Sarkus]

I'm saying I haven't made that claim, so you should work with what you have, not infer something that is of no importance to the discussion.
What is the point of me denying that I never claimed the existence of God. If I want to make that claim, then I will make it. But I didn't make that claim. So why can't you work with that? Why is me making that claim so important to you?

You're the one making the point of it by constantly denying that you did make the claim. The issue has, in many respects, moved away from the simple claim but to your continued denial of it when it is blatantly implicit in what you have said. Your denial speaks to your overall debating tactics as well as your inability to understand logic.

I may believe in God, but as a human being, I can be objective. I can have a discussion without having to use my personal beliefs as the basis of that discussion. In this case that is what I have done.

You may think you can be objective, but as yet you have failed to objectively imagine the possibility of God not existing - because your worldview requires it. Your very first statement in post #602 was the prime example of how your a priori assumption of the actual existence of God (i.e. more than just a concept) prevents you from being truly objective.

How is it possible to imagine something specific (as was asked) without having a definition of that thing? If we can imagine anything we like, and call it God, then why ask us to specifically imagine 'God'.

Because it is not the definition that changes, but the reality of the thing assigned the definition. You have agreed that imaginary things can be defined, and that having a definition does not mean that the thing necessarily exists. But you can't seem to separate the definition of God from God's actual existence (as more than just an imaginary concept).

It really is that simple.

 

[James R]

I am precise in what I say. God exists, in some form or other. We live in a world where the majority believes in God, and some other don't. It all revolves around God, so regardless of belief God exists, or we wouldn't be wasting our time with these long discussions.

You're confusing the idea of God with God. There's no dispute that various ideas of God exist, such as the "original cause". The fact that the idea exists doesn't mean that the object of the idea exists.

But I'm sure you can make this distinction. It makes me wonder why you go to such lengths to try to obfuscate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're confusing the idea of God with God. There's no dispute that various ideas of God exist, such as the "original cause". The fact that the idea exists doesn't mean that the object of the idea exists.

But I'm sure you can make this distinction. It makes me wonder why you go to such lengths to try to obfuscate.

You do not know if God actually exists or not. You act as though the default position is God does not exist. God does exist as an idea for everybody. That's the default position.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're the one making the point of it by constantly denying that you did make the claim.

Why can't you accept that?

The issue has, in many respects, moved away from the simple claim but to your continued denial of it when it is blatantly implicit in what you have said.

It is your doing why it has moved away. I explained my point numerous times.

You may think you can be objective, but as yet you have failed to objectively imagine the possibility of God not existing - because your worldview requires it. Your very first statement in post #602 was the prime example of how your a priori assumption of the actual existence of God (i.e. more than just a concept) prevents you from being truly objective.

I've already explained that God is already defined, and the instruction was to imagine God does not exist. Outside of using the definition of God in the exercise, I don't know how to imagine a world where God does not exist. And neither do you. Because as the trojan horse concluded, it would be just like the world is now. The world we live in has a definition of God. Any deviation from that is a description of something else. Not God.

Because it is not the definition that changes, but the reality of the thing assigned the definition. You have agreed that imaginary things can be defined, and that having a definition does not mean that the thing necessarily exists. But you can't seem to separate the definition of God from God's actual existence (as more than just an imaginary concept).

It really is that simple.

Ideas and concepts exist, and have profound effects on our lives. If I ask you if you believe in God, you'll say no (after a load of ranglins). But you'll know why you don't believe, because you know what is being asked of you. So God is established in the sense that some people believe in Him, and some don't. So if asked to imagine God, we are asked to imagine God, as we know Him, whether we accept He exists or not.

It's really that simple

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

As if they were speaking to me tonight they said he died for me, then said he died for us all.

When a father lets his perfectly healthy son die on purpose, I don't appreciate it as a kindness. In fact, it's kind of a dick move.

 

[HarryT]

Look people, I think you are all in an end-less loop of misunderstandings.
I believe Jan is misunderstanding the original message:

JBrendonK, Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined. …

I think Jan misunderstood the word “imagine” here. He seems to interpret it as to “make something up”. But I believe it was intented as “assume”.
In other words, the way I read the message from Seattle is:
If we assume that God does NOT exist: is there anything in this world or universe that would be different? According to Seattle the answer is: No.
In other words: if we assume God DOES exist, the world would look very different.
And I actually agree with Seattle, if(!) we assume that the God Seattle is talking about is the “THE definition” God Jan is talking about. I believe that if such a God existed, it would be a much better and peaceful world. Almost heaven-like I would think.

The second misunderstanding is from most people replying to Jan:
When Jan is talking about God he is most of the time talking about what he calls “THE definition” of God. Whether or not you believe God exists is not relevant: The definition exists and it is almost universal, nobody can deny that. It is what most people seem to assume God is: An out-of-this world entity that created the universe and is watching over us and judging us, or something like that. Believers and non-believers alike.

 

[spidergoat]

You do not know if God actually exists or not. You act as though the default position is God does not exist. God does exist as an idea for everybody. That's the default position.

jan.

And God doesn't exist exists as an idea for everybody.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And God doesn't exist exists as an idea for everybody.

For whom does God not exist as an idea.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Look people, I think you are all in an end-less loop of misunderstandings.
I believe Jan is misunderstanding the original message:
I think Jan misunderstood the word “imagine” here. He seems to interpret it as to “make something up”. But I believe it was intented as “assume”.
In other words, the way I read the message from Seattle is:
If we assume that God does NOT exist: is there anything in this world or universe that would be different? According to Seattle the answer is: No.
In other words: if we assume God DOES exist, the world would look very different.
And I actually agree with Seattle, if(!) we assume that the God Seattle is talking about is the “THE definition” God Jan is talking about.

The second misunderstanding is from most people replying to Jan:
When Jan is talking about God he is most of the time talking about what he calls “THE definition” of God. Whether or not you believe God exists is not relevant: The definition exists and it is almost universal, nobody can deny that. It is what most people seem to assume God is: An out-of-this world entity that created the universe and is watching over us and judging us, or something like that. Believers and non-believers alike.

That is the way this discussion could have gone.Thanks for that voice of reason.

I believe that if such a God existed, it would be a much better and peaceful world. Almost heaven-like I would think.

Why do you think this would be so?

jan.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

When a father lets his perfectly healthy son die on purpose, I don't appreciate it as a kindness. In fact, it's kind of a dick move.

Like absolutes and determinism there are things a temporal bieng will not objectify, just pause and imagine you did not know everything and possibly still don't. I can surely tell you I have struggled with the same thought patterns.

 

[James R]

You do not know if God actually exists or not.

True. Neither do you.

You act as though the default position is God does not exist.

Yes. Just as the default position is that Mary Poppins does not exist. Or Superman. Or the yellow-spotted whale.

God does exist as an idea for everybody. That's the default position.

No. Children, for example, have no concept of God until somebody puts it into their heads.

I agree that God exists as an idea for you and me, and the other participants in this thread.

 

[spidergoat]

For whom does God not exist as an idea.

jan.

That's my attitude about it, as well as many other nonsense concepts, such as ghosts, leprechauns, garden fairies, good Republicans...

 

[HarryT]

Like absolutes and determinism there are things a temporal bieng will not objectify, just pause and imagine you did not know everything and possibly still don't. I can surely tell you I have struggled with the same thought patterns.

Is not it much more logical to just accept we dont know everything instead of attributing things we don't understand to supreme or temporal beings ? A human mind is very powerful in many ways. It can comprehend much more that you seem to give it credit for and at the same time you seem to underestimate the power of the mind to make you see things that are not there.

 

[HarryT]

I believe that if such a God existed, it would be a much better and peaceful world. Almost heaven-like I would think.

Why do you think this would be so?

Why do you think such a God would create a world and universe like we have now? A world that is almost Hell-like? I mean, it is full of violent, selfish, nationalistic, extremist people and full with terrible disasters and diseases. That just does not make any sense (unless this God is in fact the Devil?). Instead it all(!) makes perfect sense if this world came to be from an evolutionary process.
Besides this: With the current scientific knowledge it has become clear, I would say: beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no need for a “THE definition” God to explain it all(!)

 

[Yazata]

Demonstrably, there are many different gods that people may choose to believe in. You subscribe to a particular set of beliefs which differ from the beliefs of many other theists. Therefore, your God is not necessarily the same as their God or gods.

I'm confident that your God is different in its particulars when compared to Zeus, the Aken, Anubis, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh, and many others.

Theists don't typically believe in some Ardena-style 'lowest common denominator' God that he/she (falsely) believes is revealed in all "scriptures". They believe in the God who revealed himself to Moses at Sinai, who revealed the Quran to Mohammed near Mecca, who revealed himself to Arjuna on his chariot on the eve of battle, or as Jesus on the cross. Trying to find something common to all monotheistic accounts of gods and their activities will produce a terribly impoverished concept of deity that bears little resemblance to what any theist believes in real life. (Except that Jan would deny that it's a concept at all, since concepts are human creations and "THE definition of God" is supposed to be supernatural, revealed to the Vedic rishis or something.) Real life monotheists may indeed agree with Jan's concept of God as creator, but their ideas of God are far more expansive and they would rarely if ever stop there. Probably the closest real-life exemplar of believers in Jan's historically peculiar version of God might be the 18th century Deists. Except their views were based on their respect for natural theology's design-argument. Their movement was defined by its skepticism regarding revealed theology, Jan's "scriptures".

My point is that you're just changing the name of a thing, replacing the word "universe" with "God". That's a mere cosmetic change. Nothing significant changes if I choose to call my dog Fred instead of Rex.

The Big Bang might arguably qualify as being God in Jan's view, since it's arguably 'creator', the origin of the physical space-time-matter universe. Of course it doesn't show intelligence or purposefulness and it doesn't offer any sort of salvation. It doesn't seem to have any moral qualities at all. Nor is there any reason why mankind should love it or worship it. That's the poverty of Jan's idea, it doesn't enable us to distinguish the religious concept of God from secular cosmological concepts.

In an earlier post, in response to Pachomius' demand that we post our concepts of God, I wrote:

I'm not a theist, so there isn't really any particular concept of God that I embrace. I basically just react to the ideas about God that theists present.

But I know enough about religion to have some feeling for the diversity implicit in the 'God' concept, for the different ways that theists use the word.

At one end of the spectrum there are the cosmological functions: first-cause, sustainer-of-being, and so on. As I suggested in post #322, I don't have a clue what, if anything, performs these functions. I don't believe that anyone knows. I'm basically an agnostic regarding these cosmological sort of God-concepts.

At the other end of the theistic spectrum are the highly individualized and personalized ideas of God: The Biblical Yahweh, The Quran's Allah, the Gita's Krishna. These God concepts imagine God as a psychologically human-like personality, with emotions and purposes, capable of love and wrath. This kind of God is universally imagined as being somehow better than humans (and not just more powerful), as having a legitimate claim on our loyalty, as being in a rightful position to command us, what the bible calls: 'Lord'. (The word 'Islam' means 'submission' to God.) God deserves our worship and is the proper and suitable object for that worship.

This kind of God is often imagined as the creator and sustainer of moral values, and as being somehow the embodiment of absolute good. God is an object of longing for many people, who seek to merge with him or bask in his beatific presence. God is often associated with salvation, with a promised rescue from all the pains and imperfections of real life, and particularly from death.

As for me, I'm essentially an atheist when it comes to these more traditional personifications of God. I don't believe that they correspond to anything in reality.

Your own 'creator and operator of everything with a beginning' sounds like it leans towards the cosmological concepts. There may be a hint of personification in the words 'creator' and 'operator' though, since they seem to suggest some kind of intelligent agent.

As I mentioned to you in another thread, your concept of God seems to be seriously deficient to me, because it seemingly leaves out and ignores precisely the features that most theists feel are most important about God.

Jan took exception to what I'd said to Pachomius and revealed this gem:

Why does it matter what most theists believe, or even think. We're talking about God, or at least a concept of God based on what God is.

Which looks to me to be as clear an expression of Jan's belief in the existence of God as we are likely to ever get. God is, and correct concepts and definitions of God must be based on what God truly is. Jan likes to imagine that the rest of Sciforums' participants are afraid to learn to think about God properly (Jan's way).

But Jan is exceedingly reluctant to explain in any detail what his or her supposedly superior way of thinking about God is and to reveal the tradition that it supposedly derives from (assuming that Jan didn't make it up for him/herself in some fit of 'new age' imagination). Instead there's all this talk about "scripture", seemingly in blissful ignorance that religious writings never exist in a vacuum. Scriptures always exist in the context of the religious traditions that compiled them, interpret them and believe them to be authoritative.