Does God exist?

[ughaibu]

Which concept of God do you accept?

I reckon there are three essential components in any god concept,

1) gods are assumed to control, but are distinct from, one or more natural phenomena

2) gods are assumed to have mainly autonomous volition

3) gods are assumed to be influenceable or controllable by humans.

I missed your good argument that God can not be the organizing force of the universe, because__________. And we can not learn of God by studying nature, because__________.

1) laws of nature are real

2) scientists study nature in an attempt to isolate and mathematically express those laws

3) scientists study strings of symbols that correspond to facts observed in nature

4) scientists produce algorithms (that more or less approximate the laws of nature) which generate the strings corresponding to the facts and generate new strings that correspond to testable predictions

5) the best theories generate the longest strings of facts/predictions, from the shortest algorithms (principle of parsimony)

6) any string of symbols can be expressed as a string of binary digits

7) a string of binary digits is random if it is incompressible, that is to say, if it can not be generated by any string shorter than itself

8) it follows that all facts are either random (those that form incompressible strings) or they are generated by laws that are random (those generated by parsimoniously incompressible strings)

9) given 8, there is no reason in nature

God can be anything or everything. Good, now that we have established God exist

That god exists isn't established by the fact that the word "god" is arbitrarily and openly definable. Conversely, this establishes that the word "god" is a free variable with no fixed referent, exactly like an algebraic "x", and while real values can be substituted for x, there is no real x in itself. Similarly, you have defined god out of any possible existence by defining it as an arbitrarily definable variable.

[Boerseun]

Hypothetical example:

 

I'm going to invent a concept. I will sell this concept to you with the following guarantees:

 

• If you believe in my concept, this "concept" will provide you with another life after this one is done.
  
• This "concept" caused the entire universe to come into exitence.
  
• This "concept" runs the universe - it's the oil in the cogs on which the planets orbit the sun, the sun orbit the Milky Way, and so on.
  
• It will reward you if you live according to its rules, one of which, of course, is to convince other people to do so, too.
  
• You have to donate money to the maintenance and spreading of said concept. If you don't, your post-humus reward will be correspondingly smaller.
  
• Everything about this concept that you don't understand, will be explained to you in full detail - after you kicked the bucket.
  
• You will be generously rewarded (who don't want to live forever, after all?) AFTER YOU'VE KICKED THE BUCKET. But you have to give money NOW. You have to IMPOVERISH yourself in this life so you can be rewarded AFTER YOU'VE KICKED THE BUCKET.
  

I'm gonna call this concept "Fetzlebetzer". And Fetzlebetzer will cause some people to fly airplanes into buildings. But that's all good - afterwards, their post bucket-kicking reward will include a lotta virgins.

 

What the hell ...

 

People will come to Fetzelbetzer's defence, saying things like "Everybody has his own interpretation of Fetzlebetzer", and whether you believe in Fetzlebetzer or not, it exists. There can be no other explanation for the universe, in all its majesty and glory, but the interference of Fetzlebetzer somewhere along the line. If you don't believe in Fetzelbetzer, you will burn in hell! For all eternity!

 

...but nobody stopped to think that Fetzlebetzer was simply a product of my imagination, it came into existence when I put finger to keyboard and typed it's glorious name for the first time. Before I typed those 12 letters in the right sequence, there was no such thing as a Fetzlebetzer. There was no need for a Fetzlebetzer to be.

 

Same with God.

 

God is a concept. It's not a universal Big Daddy, it's not a Being, it's not a spirit, it's not a consciousness. It's merely a construct of the human mind. Not a human mind of our generation, mind you - a human mind who lived thousands of years ago, a human mind that didn't have access to even the most rudimentary libraries.

 

And there is no need for a concept such as God, other than to make a bunch of superstitious hairless bipeds sleep a bit more easily at night, warmed by the fire of righteousness.

 

God is a scam. A scam pulled on humanity for thousands of years by a bunch of conmen calling themselves rabbis, popes, priests, imams, mullahs, and pastors. And the scam have been going for such a long time, it gathered so much momentum that its feeding on itself. Very few of those conmen know that they are, in fact, conmen. They profess to be in direct contact with God, to hear God, to be able to talk to God, because they fear ridicule from their peers, who they secretly believe to actually be in contact with God. So, one priest will state publically that he talks to God, because the other priest said it, and that is what priests are supposed to do. But back home, at night, he wonders by himself why God doesn't speak to him. What did he do wrong? God speaks to all the other men of the cloth, but him? Why is it, that when growing up we all read the story about the "Emperors New Clothes" and understood the story, but those who end up making a living through religion didn't? Or do they simply "not get it"?

 

To all those infuriated at the above, go to the library and get the children's fable about the "Emperor's New Clothes". Go and read it. Read it again. Get the message. Then go to church and ask your pastor what God said to him the last time they spoke. Watch his eyes carefully - if he's right-handed, his eyes will flick to the left when he lies - when he answers you "God told me to A, B or C" Then tell him that the Emperor is naked. If he doesn't get it, explain it to him.

 

All Men of the Cloth live in fear of being exposed as the only guy God doesn't speak to. Yet they all profess their blind belief on Sundays.

 

They are spineless liars, all.

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[nutronjon]

Hypothetical example:

 

I'm going to invent a concept. I will sell this concept to you with the following guarantees:

 

• If you believe in my concept, this "concept" will provide you with another life after this one is done.
  
• This "concept" caused the entire universe to come into exitence.
  
• This "concept" runs the universe - it's the oil in the cogs on which the planets orbit the sun, the sun orbit the Milky Way, and so on.
  
• It will reward you if you live according to its rules, one of which, of course, is to convince other people to do so, too.
  
• You have to donate money to the maintenance and spreading of said concept. If you don't, your post-humus reward will be correspondingly smaller.
  
• Everything about this concept that you don't understand, will be explained to you in full detail - after you kicked the bucket.
  
• You will be generously rewarded (who don't want to live forever, after all?) AFTER YOU'VE KICKED THE BUCKET. But you have to give money NOW. You have to IMPOVERISH yourself in this life so you can be rewarded AFTER YOU'VE KICKED THE BUCKET.
  

I'm gonna call this concept "Fetzlebetzer". And Fetzlebetzer will cause some people to fly airplanes into buildings. But that's all good - afterwards, their post bucket-kicking reward will include a lotta virgins.

 

What the hell ...

 

People will come to Fetzelbetzer's defence, saying things like "Everybody has his own interpretation of Fetzlebetzer", and whether you believe in Fetzlebetzer or not, it exists. There can be no other explanation for the universe, in all its majesty and glory, but the interference of Fetzlebetzer somewhere along the line. If you don't believe in Fetzelbetzer, you will burn in hell! For all eternity!

 

...but nobody stopped to think that Fetzlebetzer was simply a product of my imagination, it came into existence when I put finger to keyboard and typed it's glorious name for the first time. Before I typed those 12 letters in the right sequence, there was no such thing as a Fetzlebetzer. There was no need for a Fetzlebetzer to be.

 

Same with God.

 

God is a concept. It's not a universal Big Daddy, it's not a Being, it's not a spirit, it's not a consciousness. It's merely a construct of the human mind. Not a human mind of our generation, mind you - a human mind who lived thousands of years ago, a human mind that didn't have access to even the most rudimentary libraries.

 

And there is no need for a concept such as God, other than to make a bunch of superstitious hairless bipeds sleep a bit more easily at night, warmed by the fire of righteousness.

 

God is a scam. A scam pulled on humanity for thousands of years by a bunch of conmen calling themselves rabbis, popes, priests, imams, mullahs, and pastors. And the scam have been going for such a long time, it gathered so much momentum that its feeding on itself. Very few of those conmen know that they are, in fact, conmen. They profess to be in direct contact with God, to hear God, to be able to talk to God, because they fear ridicule from their peers, who they secretly believe to actually be in contact with God. So, one priest will state publically that he talks to God, because the other priest said it, and that is what priests are supposed to do. But back home, at night, he wonders by himself why God doesn't speak to him. What did he do wrong? God speaks to all the other men of the cloth, but him? Why is it, that when growing up we all read the story about the "Emperors New Clothes" and understood the story, but those who end up making a living through religion didn't? Or do they simply "not get it"?

 

To all those infuriated at the above, go to the library and get the children's fable about the "Emperor's New Clothes". Go and read it. Read it again. Get the message. Then go to church and ask your pastor what God said to him the last time they spoke. Watch his eyes carefully - if he's right-handed, his eyes will flick to the left when he lies - when he answers you "God told me to A, B or C" Then tell him that the Emperor is naked. If he doesn't get it, explain it to him.

 

All Men of the Cloth live in fear of being exposed as the only guy God doesn't speak to. Yet they all profess their blind belief on Sundays.

 

They are spineless liars, all.

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

 

Ah the debate gets interesting. Why would this concept (god) give a hoot that you convince anyone of the existence of God? I think you are projecting your own idea of what God is into this debate, in order to have something to argue against, which is your own concept of God, not mine. If we are punished or rewarded does not depend on the whims of a God, but the consequences of our actions. That is why it is a good idea to know cause and effect, and to do our best to understand the reason of things, and base our laws on our best understanding of reason, and change our laws when we have new knowledge and better reasoning.

[nutronjon]

That god exists isn't established by the fact that the word "god" is arbitrarily and openly definable. Conversely, this establishes that the word "god" is a free variable with no fixed referent, exactly like an algebraic "x", and while real values can be substituted for x, there is no real x in itself. Similarly, you have defined god out of any possible existence by defining it as an arbitrarily definable variable.

 

I have said God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force. You can argue God is not the stuff of the universe and the organizing force, but how are you going to convince me that it is not God? The X factor is the limits of our knowledge. God is beyond our comprehension, but the more we question, the more we learn and this is a good thing, no?

[ughaibu]

I have said God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force

And it means no more than KickAssClown saying god is a coffee cup.

[Boerseun]

God is beyond our comprehension,

This is a regular reply from cornered believers, and a cop-out.

 

If God is "beyond our comprehension", then how, pray tell, can we know of His/Hers or Its existence?

 

I have said earlier that if all possible knowledge is described as x, and human knowledge is described as y, then God is the unknown - the gap between x and y. God is simply x-y. Or, put more simply, God is the sum total of human ignorance. That much I do know. And that could resonate with your "beyond our comprehension" bit, and neatly slots into...

...but the more we question, the more we learn and this is a good thing, no?

Yes. That will be the asymptotic approach of human knowledge approaching all possible knowledge. Or, the elimination of ignorance. With every experiment, with every test, with every new insight into the natural world, God's wriggling space becomes ever smaller.

 

I see that as a very good thing, indeed. But not good for the big money-making racket that is Global Religion.

[C1ay]

I have said God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force. You can argue God is not the stuff of the universe and the organizing force, but how are you going to convince me that it is not God?

 

It's not our burden to convince you. You have made a claim, i.e. "God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force", and it is your burden to prove that. Your "God is beyond our comprehension" argument is unscientific and unacceptable. We await your scientific proof.

[Jet2]

God only exist in the minds of people who believe but not in the ones who don't.

[Thunderbird]

God only exist in the minds of people who believe but not in the ones who don't.

That about sums it up. The end :shrug:

[nutronjon]

What a delightful conclusion. That means what we believe is real is only delusion. I am sure there iare philosophical arguments that state the case. Socrates speaks of the cave, and how those who never left the cave, believe reality is the shadows on the wall. This is true for unenlightened people, yes?

[ughaibu]

What a delightful conclusion. That means what we believe is real is only delusion. I am sure there iare philosophical arguments that state the case. Socrates speaks of the cave, and how those who never left the cave, believe reality is the shadows on the wall. This is true for unenlightened people, yes?

DoctorDick is a fan of Plato's allegory of the cave, perhaps you're ready to graduate to "my fundamental equation" threads.

[nutronjon]

And it means no more than KickAssClown saying god is a coffee cup.

 

That is a beginning. Now use science to understand the cup of coffee. However, I think saying God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force of it, and scientifically studying that, will lead to a better understanding of reality.

 

Why do we accept the concept of atomic particles and the ego and id, but not the concepts of God, spirit and soul?

 

If I say some posters are mean spirited, does that have meaning? If I someone is my soul brother, does that have meaning? If I say I feel loving does that have meaning? Spirit, soul, love are not material?

 

Some people are being a bit arbitary about which non physcial things we can hold as real and which we can not. You all believe in sex drive, don't you? Okay, what is that feeling that some people associate with God's love? Not what you think of that feeling, but define the feeling itself. The anceints said love is the quality that attracts things to each other, and concluded God is love. This is about language isn't it? What words and language we will accept and what words and language we will not accept, and our chioces effect our relationships with each other.

[nutronjon]

This is a regular reply from cornered believers, and a cop-out.

 

If God is "beyond our comprehension", then how, pray tell, can we know of His/Hers or Its existence?

 

I have said earlier that if all possible knowledge is described as x, and human knowledge is described as y, then God is the unknown - the gap between x and y. God is simply x-y. Or, put more simply, God is the sum total of human ignorance. That much I do know. And that could resonate with your "beyond our comprehension" bit, and neatly slots into...

 

Yes. That will be the asymptotic approach of human knowledge approaching all possible knowledge. Or, the elimination of ignorance. With every experiment, with every test, with every new insight into the natural world, God's wriggling space becomes ever smaller.

 

I see that as a very good thing, indeed. But not good for the big money-making racket that is Global Religion.

 

 

We agree the universe exist don't we? How about the elememts of the atom, we believe they exist don't we? How about the debate over string theory? Is this fully comprehensible to everyone, including the whole universe? Do we actually know everything there is to know, and do we fully comprehend the universe? That something exist, doesn't depend on us having fully knowlegde of it and we do not have full of universe. There is a point of view that God is the stuff the universe and organizing forces, and scientific study of the universe is also a study of God. Now given today's science we appear to be coming a lot closer to comprehending it, but it is still beyond our comprehension.

[Thunderbird]

What a delightful conclusion. That means what we believe is real is only delusion. I am sure there iare philosophical arguments that state the case. Socrates speaks of the cave, and how those who never left the cave, believe reality is the shadows on the wall. This is true for unenlightened people, yes?

 

I believe we exist between two polarities, one of the known, and one of mystery . The ultimate source of this world wells up from inside of us, and this source is the mystery. It is not a thing that can be quantified, and any attempt to do so by religion or science is folly in my opinion. It is creative force that can be utilized with a sense of wonder and awe. Delusions are generated when one does not find a stable awareness between these to poles of mystery and awareness.

 

For the record and IMHO, I think you do a great job in this regard ,much more centered than some you are criticized by on this forum. :shrug:

[C1ay]

However, I think saying God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force of it, and scientifically studying that, will lead to a better understanding of reality.

 

No, saying there is a god at all is proffering an unsupported claim that there is a god, unless you're simply calling nature god which is pretty much pointless since we already have a term for "nature" and nothing is gained by using the ambiguously defined term "god" in place of it.

 

Why say there is a recliner orbiting Neptune and proceed to scientifically study whether or not it is a Lazyboy or a Broyhill without first studying to see if there really is a recliner orbiting Neptune? Saying it is so does not make it so.

[nutronjon]

This is a regular reply from cornered believers, and a cop-out.

 

If God is "beyond our comprehension", then how, pray tell, can we know of His/Hers or Its existence?

 

I have said earlier that if all possible knowledge is described as x, and human knowledge is described as y, then God is the unknown - the gap between x and y. God is simply x-y. Or, put more simply, God is the sum total of human ignorance. That much I do know. And that could resonate with your "beyond our comprehension" bit, and neatly slots into...

 

Yes. That will be the asymptotic approach of human knowledge approaching all possible knowledge. Or, the elimination of ignorance. With every experiment, with every test, with every new insight into the natural world, God's wriggling space becomes ever smaller.

 

I see that as a very good thing, indeed. But not good for the big money-making racket that is Global Religion.

 

God's space is not changed by our knowledge, but as I said we are operating with materialistic prejudice that is invalid.

 

We do not fully comprehend the universe, and yet we don't argue that it doesn't exist. If we assume God is the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it, we are studying God when we study the universe. What is the difference?

 

Democracy is not a big money racket, but our best chance of having a good life.

[ughaibu]

you're simply calling nature god which is pretty much pointless since we already have a term for "nature" and nothing is gained by using the ambiguously defined term "god" in place of it

I dont see how this point can be more clearly made, and I dont see how anybody can not understand the undesirability of intentionally introducing equivocations on terms.