Convince me that God exists

[Royal Heart]

My take: You're it. Yes, you, personally. Not me, you are the creator of the universe, the creator of the present moment. You lucky jerk.

I lack the ability to translate my thoughts into words and no matter how careful I am, I'll ultimately fail at this attempt because much of what I'm trying to convey cannot be expressed in words. Sweet.

This very moment, what's going on? Where are you? What are you doing? What do you feel? Right now, as you sit at your computer, the entire universe is sitting. Every time you take a breath, the whole of creation is breathing. It's all you. Not your sense of self, no, but the one who "has" a self. The "you" in the word "yourself". There is no external sky-father, there is no cosmic omnicordial three-headed primordial beast beyond time; there is just you, and just this moment, and you're it, baby. You're God, and you most certainly exist. Jerk.

 

[MrBubulino]

I think you began with the wrong petition. "Does God exist?" should be preceded by "What does God mean to you?".

Can God be? Can God exist? Those verbs imply place and time. To understand God we should think of an idea that is ouside time and space. And thinking of that is impossible, just like thinking of a color you haven't seen or a smell you don't know.

Most religions agree on the idea of a God that creates and rules. Our mistake is to believe he's a spirit simmilar to a person who feels, who thinks and who acts.

In my personal opinion, God is not a person, nor a creature, nor a spirit. God is just the basic forces that gave origin to the physical universe. God is a word we should use to explain the whole existence: the space and time that are the limits of our way of being, the laws that rule matter, the constant process of creation and destruction, the energy that forms everything in our known universe.

So it really depends on what YOU start to consider as a possibility.

 

[Jacquemar]

Let me turn this around.......

Convince me that God doesn't exist.....

Should mods really be inciting debates in this thread?

 

[altlover85]

Royal and MrBulbino gave the best answers in my opinion. It gets difficult because there isn't currently a way to prove God exists. The fact that there are different definitions does not make things any easier. Because I feel that our beliefs our a function of the time and place where we live it's difficult for me to think that any conception of God could hold throughout time or different groups of people thus making it harder to prove God's existence.

 

[shainski]

The existence of lions, makes zebras faster, stronger and smarter. That's not great for an individual slower, older, weaker zebra, but it may be great for zebras as a whole.

You create a world, but you don't micromanage it. You want to see how it will change on its own. The mechanism is there for it to change.

To me there is so much that cannot be explained - whether or not there is a creator. Even if we can explain a second after the big bang - while that is beyond comprehension, it seems trivial to the explanation life - any life - even an amoeba.

I don't know if God is omniscient; maybe God is an accumulation of all knowledge. Maybe part of us that exists outside of our physical nature. Maybe before we are born, we choose the challenge that we are to undertake knowing full-well that it will be difficult. Maybe your soul chooses to be an poor jewish gay man living in nazi germany so that you can come back and add to the knowledge database.

Maybe God won't reveal himself to you because having that would change everything. Walking to school by yourself for the first time would be a different experience if you knew that Mom was following you hiding in the bushes - keeping you safe.

The alternative that life evolved on its own by nearly infinite bombardment of atoms in nearly infinite circumstances. And once life began, by its very nature, those amoeba were bound to evolve into both the lion and the zebra. Life had to be exactly suited to the Earth - because evolution dictates that life must optimize itself for whatever environment it exists on.

If you were an inventor and created minature robots. You give your robots the ability to build more robots and to correct their "offspring" depending on changes to their own environment - or they keep creating any kind of models they can think of to see what would be best suited to their circumstances. Then you experiment by putting some of them in a room. Would you be "god" to those robots? If you came back in a year - how would your "world" have changed? Would models that were not as optimal as others - chastise you because you did not make them optimal?

Do i know God exists? No. Do i know God does not exist? No. Neither option is totally satisfactory for my mind. I could nor more prove one than the other.

 

[bankside]

Let's lower the bar a bit: convince me that god probably exists. Or even that god is equally like to exist as to not exist.

And for those of you hung up on semantic hair splitting with regard to the allegèd distinction between "existing" and "being," convince me that "God is" is more likely that "God isn't."

And, I will respect wooffy's rules of not being argumentative, but please don't just quote lists of what you would like god to be, or lists of what you religious institution says god is like. Please give arguments for why it is probable.

 

[altlover85]

I've always thought that everything has an origin, so I think of God as the Creator and the origin of things. I think any serious discussion of this would have to be grounded on a knowledge of philosophy and theology that I don't have though.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Wrong. The whole "believing God doesn't exist takes the same amount of faith" argument is a fallacy. Does it take as much faith to believe in the existence leprechauns as it does to NOT believe in the existence of leprechauns?

It takes faith to believe in something despite lack of evidence. It does NOT take faith to NOT believe something exists when the evidence for its existence is lacking.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; it's just evidence that we need more evidence that is currently beyond our means of detection. (Sorry, that was probably confusing.)

Leprechauns, unicorns, and spaghetti monsters are by their definition creatures whose existence would be observable thus provable via human means of detection.
A god, how most religions can conceive it (if liberal enough), is not like these other legends, gods are by there definition outside our means of proof/disproof.
Yes, it's a bit of a copout to claim an invisible, scientifically undetectable god, but it's an effective copout.

I think while there are some people are suited differently by those two kinds of faith (in the absolute existence of God and the absolute non-existence), the most logical faith would be no faith either way. There is not enough evidence for a foolproof faith either way. However, the logical choice is not always best when it comes to us sentimental creatures.

There are plenty of lies we tell ourselves everyday that, when fully confronted, we understand on some level are lies. We love to lie to ourselves as a preservation mechanism: we're pretty, we're talented, we're not assholes, we're not a bunch of trolls on a porn forum. Hell, I can admit right now there's a good 80% chance my mom has a good idea about my sexuality and go right back to pretending she doesn't after I hit the submit button.

If we didn't tell ourselves SOME of the lies SOMEtimes, life would be unnecessarily hard. Nobody is gonna die if I lie about my sexuality. Starving children aren't going to be fed on my acceptance of my hideosity. In fact, telling myself these little lies helps me maintain the sanity to be more effective where I'm needed. (Me being needed may just be another lie though, lol)

Some people benefit from lying to themselves that there is irrefutable proof of a god. Some people benefit from lying to themselves that there is scientific proof of no god.
Whatever. Different strokes for different folks. Whatever does the trick for you, as long as the trick isn't being played on somebody who doesn't deserve it.

Make-believe... but let believe.

 

[WillMc88]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; it's just evidence that we need more evidence that is currently beyond our means of detection. (Sorry, that was probably confusing.)

Leprechauns, unicorns, and spaghetti monsters are by their definition creatures whose existence would be observable thus provable via human means of detection.
A god, how most religions can conceive it (if liberal enough), is not like these other legends, gods are by there definition outside our means of proof/disproof.
Yes, it's a bit of a copout to claim an invisible, scientifically undetectable god, but it's an effective copout.

I think while there are some people are suited differently by those two kinds of faith (in the absolute existence of God and the absolute non-existence), the most logical faith would be no faith either way. There is not enough evidence for a foolproof faith either way. However, the logical choice is not always best when it comes to us sentimental creatures.

There are plenty of lies we tell ourselves everyday that, when fully confronted, we understand on some level are lies. We love to lie to ourselves as a preservation mechanism: we're pretty, we're talented, we're not assholes, we're not a bunch of trolls on a porn forum. Hell, I can admit right now there's a good 80% chance my mom has a good idea about my sexuality and go right back to pretending she doesn't after I hit the submit button.

If we didn't tell ourselves SOME of the lies SOMEtimes, life would be unnecessarily hard. Nobody is gonna die if I lie about my sexuality. Starving children aren't going to be fed on my acceptance of my hideosity. In fact, telling myself these little lies helps me maintain the sanity to be more effective where I'm needed. (Me being needed may just be another lie though, lol)

Some people benefit from lying to themselves that there is irrefutable proof of a god. Some people benefit from lying to themselves that there is scientific proof of no god.
Whatever. Different strokes for different folks. Whatever does the trick for you, as long as the trick isn't being played on somebody who doesn't deserve it.

Make-believe... but let believe.

I would disagree that some people need to lie to themselves to be happy at all. People who believe delusions are not facing reality. I think that anybody can learn to live without lying to themselves. This is important to me personally because I like to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

As for a god being undetectable, if anything manifests in reality in some way, then it would be possible to test those manifestations.

Here's a some food for though: Let's say there are two gods. One is to my left, and the other is to my right. They are both invisible and undetectable. The only difference is that one is real and the other is imaginary. How do you tell which one is real?

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

I would disagree that some people need to lie to themselves to be happy at all. People who believe delusions are not facing reality. I think that anybody can learn to live without lying to themselves. This is important to me personally because I like to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

As for a god being undetectable, if anything manifests in reality in some way, then it would be possible to test those manifestations.

Here's a some food for though: Let's say there are two gods. One is to my left, and the other is to my right. They are both invisible and undetectable. The only difference is that one is real and the other is imaginary. How do you tell which one is real?

Before I answer your question, there is a reason I highlighted those phrases.

From your contrarian style of argument it seems you are an academic. (A cute one at that!)

I've met people like you in this fashion as a (tentative) member of academia. We can "rationalize" away the legitimate opinions and views of those not characteristic of this academic community. The ever increasing unpopularity of firm religious belief seems to have prompted an overlooking of what brings people to religion.

Outside of the middle-class bubble that is academia, rationalization is not enough for the woes of many people. Pie charts do not feed your family. NMR Spectroscopy does not allow you to fix a tormented past. Witty debate does not raise your dead mother. Socratic apology does not keep your parents from beating you.

Yes for some people LIKE YOU, facing the truth all the time may be better. Maybe that's because your truth is easier to swallow/you're good at deep throat (lol, I kid... unless you are.. then yay!). Some people's realities are too much to swallow and they deal with it best by assuring themselves there is a god. That may be all they have. Their god, real or unreal, could be the only thing they perceive as loving them. My privilege as a member of academia has allowed me to meet hordes of people from parts of the world where faith is the only support they can afford.

I say facing reality is overrated. So they (falsely) say that a god or gods cannot within a shadow of a doubt exist. Now what? They are still homeless, uneducated, abused, under-served... except now they don't have anybody they believe loves them unconditionally.

Does this slight (in the scheme of things) distortion of reality perception bring malice to anybody directly? No. Unless their god hates fags or w/e, but that's another issue.

If you are reasonably sane person you probably assume beyond a doubt (subconsciously at least) that you and everybody in your life that you have ever loved are real. All those matrix-y philosophies blew that shit out the water. We can no longer assume that anything we observe with our eyes is truly real with any absolute proof. Absolute proof of anything doesn't even exist. Our universe could be a fabrication. You could be a fabrication. Maybe there isn't even a fabrication... just a semblance of one. If you are sane, I doubt these thoughts race through your head all the time. You assume what is most comfortable and get on with your damn life.

Even now, you probably assume on some level that I am not a psycho killer tracing your IP. Sure you can turn around and say that you do not make that assumption, but I doubt your life is worth posting on some silly porn forum. We all make assumptions based in some kind of faith. A lot of these assumptions are harmless and streamline life.

To answer your contrarian question: You can't tell absolutely. I never said you could. Don't ask me for shit if you want definite proof of a god. I'm with the OP on this one, no definitive proof either way. As long as it is a net good for your world, believe in whichever left or right hand god you want. Or don't believe in either. That's your decision.

A question to you: if you took a person that was perfectly rational and decent save a 100% faith in God, what would a 100% atheist view do for them or anybody around them?

Oh, and you can't bring up the sins of institutional religions in your answer, or a discrimination against the faithless. Atheists discriminate against the faithful all the time, and atheists have done their fair share of shit. Just tell me what shaking his faith itself would do (besides giving him a more "scientific view of reality", unless you can tell me how that would optimize his life.)

 

[Jacquemar]

I've always thought that everything has an origin, so I think of God as the Creator and the origin of things. I think any serious discussion of this would have to be grounded on a knowledge of philosophy and theology that I don't have though.

I'll probably get cited for this, but in my opinion, it doesn't take a degree to recognize absurdities. And in my opinion the whole idea of an anthropomorphized god is a total absurdity.

 

[WillMc88]

Outside of the middle-class bubble that is academia, rationalization is not enough for the woes of many people. Pie charts do not feed your family. NMR Spectroscopy does not allow you to fix a tormented past. Witty debate does not raise your dead mother. Socratic apology does not keep your parents from beating you.

Is it ever better to be irrational than it is to be rational? I would say no. I never claimed that being rational will ipso facto accomplish any of the above things you mentioned. While maintaining an irrational belief in an all-loving god may be (temporarily) emotionally soothing, it doesn't fix any of those problems. Though it's understandable why people cling to things that make them feel better, it doesn't make them true or necessary, which was my initial point.

Some people's realities are too much to swallow and they deal with it best by assuring themselves there is a god. That may be all they have. Their god, real or unreal, could be the only thing they perceive as loving them. My privilege as a member of academia has allowed me to meet hordes of people from parts of the world where faith is the only support they can afford.

I don't accept that anyone could not find a way to cope without belief in a god. I think it's doing a disservice to human resilience and is somewhat condescending (not that I think you meant it that way at all). Like I said though, I understand why many people with sad circumstances find comfort and hope in their beliefs, even if their beliefs are false.

I say facing reality is overrated. So they (falsely) say that a god or gods cannot within a shadow of a doubt exist. Now what? They are still homeless, uneducated, abused, under-served... except now they don't have anybody they believe loves them unconditionally.

People in situations like these need real help. Giving them false hope won't erase those problems either. In fact, it may lull them into complacency. Many people believe that they can simply place all their problems in God's hands and they'll be taken care of, which prevents them from taking the necessary actions to fix their own problems.

Or they may accept their situations because they believe a much better after-life is awaiting them; thus instead of trying to better their lives, they do nothing.

Does this slight (in the scheme of things) distortion of reality perception bring malice to anybody directly? No. Unless their god hates fags or w/e, but that's another issue.

It can cause plenty of harm as I just pointed out.

If you are reasonably sane person you probably assume beyond a doubt (subconsciously at least) that you and everybody in your life that you have ever loved are real. All those matrix-y philosophies blew that shit out the water. We can no longer assume that anything we observe with our eyes is truly real with any absolute proof. Absolute proof of anything doesn't even exist. Our universe could be a fabrication. You could be a fabrication. Maybe there isn't even a fabrication... just a semblance of one. If you are sane, I doubt these thoughts race through your head all the time. You assume what is most comfortable and get on with your damn life.

It feels like this is getting off topic. There's no point in debating if nothing we know is actually real or not. It doesn't matter. Our senses are the only thing we have to perceive the world.

Even now, you probably assume on some level that I am not a psycho killer tracing your IP. Sure you can turn around and say that you do not make that assumption, but I doubt your life is worth posting on some silly porn forum. We all make assumptions based in some kind of faith. A lot of these assumptions are harmless and streamline life.

This sounds as if you were trying to work in "we all have faith in something." Quite frankly, it's much less likely that you ARE NOT a psycho killer than it is likely that you ARE a psycho killer. And I'm fine with accepting that for now. If a new co-worker tells me his name is Mark, I'm not going to demand corroborating evidence or ask to see his license. That's not at all the same as putting faith in something that has never been shown to have any supportive, demonstrable evidence.

A question to you: if you took a person that was perfectly rational and decent save a 100% faith in God, what would a 100% atheist view do for them or anybody around them?

A person who has 100% faith in a god is not perfectly rational, I would say. I don't exactly know what you mean by a 100% atheist view either. Do you mean someone who claims absolute certainty in the nonexistence of any gods? If so, that person is not perfectly rational either.

Oh, and you can't bring up the sins of institutional religions in your answer, or a discrimination against the faithless. Atheists discriminate against the faithful all the time, and atheists have done their fair share of shit. Just tell me what shaking his faith itself would do (besides giving him a more "scientific view of reality", unless you can tell me how that would optimize his life.)

I don't know who you're referring to when you say "shaking his faith," so I can't say how it would personally benefit him. And because of the fact that our beliefs inform our actions, it would be the most beneficial for our beliefs to accurately reflect reality.

 

[altlover85]

I'll probably get cited for this, but in my opinion, it doesn't take a degree to recognize absurdities. And in my opinion the whole idea of an anthropomorphized god is a total absurdity.

I never mentioned an anthropomorphized god. I simply said I believe that there is a Creator or creative force out there from which everything springs. I don't claim that I am correct. There is a chance that someday the existence of God will be provable. People thought the Earth was flat once.

It can cause plenty of harm as I just pointed out.

Will, there is potential harm in believing in God and there is potential harm in not believing in God. It depends on the person and the situation.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

^^ You made many great points, but I won't quote them as I want to avoid thread clutter.

Believing there is a god that loves you in and of itself seems little more inhibiting (in theory and practice) than believing your parents love you. Sure it can keep you from challenging certain faults of yourself and improving because you feel justified by the love of another, but if we didn't have this love, we'd just replace it with defense mechanisms.

There are plenty of people who believe in god and still try to improve their lives. Many people try to improve their lives BECAUSE of a god. (Alcoholics Anonymous anyone?) While this may not work for everyone, it works for some, and that's good enough for me.

I agree, many people use a god as an excuse for inaction, but plenty of things can be used as an excuse for inaction. However, not many things can be used as an unwavering anodyne for some of the incorrigible woes of life like steadfast love felt from somebody's god can.

I have both kinds of religion in my family, and as much as would like to narcissistically push my agnosticism on them, I realize they have a net gain from their religious practices. I have a relative right now who is seeking help for his marital and drug issues BECAUSE of his religion, NOT despite it. You can argue this is a superficial means towards self-rectification, but I posit the ends are more important here. If the means are harmless and reliable produce and end, why fix it if it ain't broke?

Basically, I side with altlover on this one.

You suggest that people in those kinds of situations get real help. I agree... in a more perfect world. Not everybody has access to all the help they need, especially outside America. Who are we to wave these unavailable options in their faces, and then tell them they can't even soothe themselves with a harmless belief? While I appreciate you not assuming my condescension, there is an air of inconsideration about expect those who've hit their glass ceiling low in life to pull themselves up by their non-existent bootstraps.

Also, by the way, I was saying rational SAVE the faith. I agree that absolute faiths on both sides are irrational, but once again do not see the benefit of absolute rationality.

Mark didn't show you any evidence, now did he? Lol

I'm not saying humans are not resilient, but why test that resilience? Your mother would live if she shot herself in the foot, but why do that? All the anodyne takes is a believe that you were made by some higher power that loves you. From there, the fallout includes a bunch of extraneous factors that have nothing to do with God or gods or goddesses or w/e.

Religion annoys me often quite frankly, so I want to demonize it as much as possible, but we have to see how selfish that is. For every person burning a Koran, there is somebody working for Salvation Army. I think if a belief in something that, in it's purest form, is harmless, helps empower somebody to give like that, who the fuck am I to tell them to be more scientific. Does science pay your bills? Not if you're not a privileged member of atheist academia.

Btw, you're hot.

 

[Willie Boy]

Since its clear I won't get any serious replies, I am done with this thread. There are so few published rational arguments for the potential existence of a god, I guess it was too much to hope that anyone here would give it an honest effort.

I gave you direct examples from my life. If that does not fit your definition of serious nothing will. I acknowledge your right to refuse to believe the truth when you hear it. But I call you a fool for showing such disrespect to everyone who offered you their views in response to your post.

You got serious replies, but you never intended to seriously consider them. That is fine, but trying to pass the responses off as being meaningless is just plain idiocy.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

While the OP has been gracious in many ways, I do feel he could engage more with the opinions and contributions of the religious. Good points from both ends.

 

[FirmaFan]

and if I may add, that the grounding can also be in the experiences of the creator in tangible way, and yes, we can literally feel His divine Presence if we are open to it.

If we could experience the presence of god in a tangible way, being open to it would have nothing to do with our ability to feel it. You don't have to be "open to it" to feel the warmth of the sun, nor will you be protected from a speeding bullet if you are "not open" to feeling it. Tangible, real world evidence of god would not be dependent upon ANY state of mind, it would just be so.

 

[Jacquemar]

It takes a humble and prayerful person to experience/recognise God through what you call "absurdities". For it is God who works through our weaknesses, and not through so-called strength. The best way to experience God is to submit/or to test the absurdities.

My own Faith has been tested and tried numerous times in my life, and even through my shattered Spriritual/Prayer Life from 2005 on, my Faith was just as strong, even stronger. I'm Glad that I was baptised as an infant, because it is the developement of that faith that also brought into the picture, the powerful presence of God the Father in my later years. When I was 5, I had terrible nightmares that lasted til I was 14 years old. There were dark shadows in my room and they had yellowish green slanted eyes, they were pulling at my ankles, dragging me with them. Then one night when I was 14, I prayed that Jesus would send his Mother, and I cried out the Holy Name of Mary, then and there, a powerful blinding flash of light sent the dark shadows away, never to return again to this day. This was just the beginning of my faith journey. Want more, let me know in PM. Oh, and my own earthly Mother thought my story was absurd.

I'm sorry that you truly believe all this. I highly recommend you read "The Bicameral Mind." It will help explain your beliefs.

 

[Jacquemar]

I don't need someone's book to explain to me my beliefs. Thanks for the recommendation, though.

No problem.

I personally believe that religion and faith are delusions caused by the interconnectedness of the logic centers and creative centers of the brain. I was once given a lecture about how the brains of the faithful are similar in structure to the brains of psychotics. (I'd like to point out at this point that I am NOT a psychologist, these are theories proposed by scientists.) Essentially, it is not the fault of the faithful that they are irrational and having religious experiences; it's that they're brains are wired that way. By the same token, atheists are biologically atheists because their brains are wired that way.

It's all very theoretical, but interesting none-the-less.

P.S.: Please no wackjob responses to this post.

 

[Jacquemar]

That is all they are, theories that are unproven.

True. But they are RATIONAL explanations, and not supernatural ones.