Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist? » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/12/09 - 06:24 AM:	#101
J. Random Hacker wrote: If there is a god, that god knows exactly what evidence it would take for me to believe in it and is powerful enough to provide that evidence. The fact that I remain unconvinced is evidence that either such a god does not exist or does not care what I believe. Perhaps this very message is part of the process needed to get you to believe in God. Of course it will always be your choice because God doesn't force people to believe or do anything they don't want to. That woouldn't be right would it?

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/12/09 - 06:31 AM:	#102
dclements wrote: In some Eastern beliefs they try not to see the worlds as 'Good' vs 'Evil' The reason for this is that they believe that as soon as someone labels something as 'evil' they are unable to be 100% rational in dealing with problems that involve things that are labeled evil. Instead they try to think as everything as part of a necessary process and understand why 'evil' things exist and what part they play in the world around us. When some westerns first hear about this concept it makes no sense how anyone can not imagine how people with such beliefs survive. However if they think about it more, they are able to understand it. The point I'm trying to make is that there are people here on earth that view morality so differently that many of the beliefs will be alien to them. If this is true for people trying to understand each others beliefs isn't it plausible that God's concept of morality can also be different? That is the whole issue in the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" story. It was man (Adam) who created evil by defining or judging things as good or evil. Part of Jesus' teachings was "Do not judge" as you have pointed out above by making judgements we cannot be unbiased in our approach to an issue. We all only have our own perception based on our own life experiences. To take an unbiased apprioach one has to see the issue from all the different life experiences of the people discussing the subject.

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/12/09 - 06:34 AM:	#103
To get back to the question Does God Exist. I think it is more a question of defining God than proving God's existence. God certainly exists as a concept. What are the characteristics of this concept. Even the Judao Christian bible speaks of God as a "spirit" not a being. In fact it says it is blasphemy to say any man can be god. I say God is the spirit of absoluet truth and righteousness.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/13/09 - 04:21 PM:	#104
If you define god as a single thing, then this leaves out other peoples god. The word "god" is used ubiquitously as an ambiguous and vague term, defining it removes it from common usage, and so renders it sterile and useless. Further, because the term can be neither disambiguated, nor clarified without the loss of its meanings, the question "does god exist" is an inherently uninteligable one. I am therefore ignostic, which remains the only tenable position.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5116

Posted 06/13/09 - 05:11 PM:	#105
Makarismos wrote: If you define god as a single thing, then this leaves out other peoples god. Perhaps. But one can still identify those predicates most commonly ascribed to "god" and examine them for their intelligibility and truth-value. The word "god" is used ubiquitously as an ambiguous and vague term, defining it removes it from common usage, and so renders it sterile and useless. Well even if this is right, failing to define a word, or concept, renders it unintelligible and useful only as a verbal crutch, or a mental stop-gap. The word will be used regardless; better to point out that it is babytalk inappropriate for adult discourse than indulge it as it coarsens, or dumbs down, every deliberation (of social consequence) no matter how much we politely ignore it. "God" -- like the word "shit" -- isn't going anywhere anytime soon, Maka. Further, because the term can be neither disambiguated, nor clarified without the loss of its meanings, the question "does god exist" is an inherently uninteligable one. This assertion is demonstrably false. Everyday, and for millenia, theologians, liturgists & lay believers use "god" unambiguously & meaningfully -- even if the concept is inherently nonsensical -- to order their lives (e.g. define themselves in contrast to others who believe otherwise or don't believe) and thus the question is significant -- especially to those of us who object to our lives being circumscribed by sectarian traditions & intolerance. "God", after all, is the "foundation" of religious dogma and it's indispensible to the maintenance of practical & intellectual freedoms to expose this "foundation" as fraudulent (or imaginary) in order to remain vigilant for the perfidy of "faith-based" social practices. I am therefore ignostic, which remains the only tenable position. This may be true but only, I think, on solipsistic grounds ... Edited by 180 Proof on 06/14/09 - 02:26 AM. Reason: Cui bono?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/14/09 - 03:15 PM:	#106
180 Proof wrote: Perhaps. But one can still identify those predicates most commonly ascribed to "god" and examine them for their intelligibility and truth-value. I accept that one might take a description of "God" (i.e. all good, all knowing, all powerfully, or god = love or some such..) and use this exact definition to set about proving or disproving the existence of that exact thing within our universe. I never sought to deny this, as can be read in to my post. What I would suggest is that this creation might bear little resemblance to a particular persons god, or (if it does) bear little resemblance to a second persons god. We might suggest a third idea which corresponds roughly to these two, and yet still leave out a third persons idea of "God". Of course we could as you suggest take the commonly held attributes and test for these, but we must then ask ourselves: who are we testing these attributes for? If not ourselves, then only those who hold exactly this beliefe (that god = x y and z). This is the problem of ambiguity, and it is one for both theists and atheists - the term "god" means hundreds of thousands of things to human kind, and perhaps a different thing to each person, and even then perhaps several different things to each person at different times. The task of disabiguation is possible in thoery, but never-ending in practice. Surely this must be an apparant problem to yourself also 180? 180 Proof wrote: Well even if this is right, failing to define a word, or concept, renders it unintelligible and useful only as a verbal crutch, or a mental stop-gap. The word will be used regardless; better to point out that it is babytalk inappropriate for adult discourse than indulge it as it coarsens, or dumbs down, every deliberation (of social consequence) no matter how much we politely ignore it. "God" -- like the word "shit" -- isn't going anywhere anytime soon, Maka. I agree that "God" is not going anywhere, and like "shit" it will be used in a great many different ways despite our definition. The act of defining a word is actually so artificial as to remove it from common usage. Take "shit" for example. The term "that's good shit" only makes sense if one re-defines the word to mean something quite different from "excrement". We use the term as a release of anger or frustration, again quite inconsistantly with its usual definition. A mere definition removes the word from its use, and forces us to consider the word as an intellectual component of a logical operation - rather than an audible symbol which can and is used as part of complex social phenomena. 180 Proof wrote: Makarismos wrote: Further, because the term can be neither disambiguated, nor clarified without the loss of its meanings, the question "does god exist" is an inherently uninteligable one. This assertion is demonstrably false. Everyday, and for millenia, theologians, liturgists & lay believers use "god" unambiguously & meaningfully -- even if the concept is inherently nonsensical -- to order their lives (e.g. define themselves in contrast to others who believe otherwise or don't believe) and thus the question is significant -- especially to those of us who object to our lives being circumscribed by sectarian traditions & intolerance. "God", after all, is the "foundation" of religious dogma and it's indispensible to the maintenance of practical & intellectual freedoms to expose this "foundation" as fraudulent (or imaginary) in order to remain vigilant for the perfidy of "faith-based" social practices. You seem to find yourself in the absurd position of one defending an idea as intelligible, though demonstrably false, when you have no way of showing this falsity. For someone who is so convicted an atheist, this must seem odd, as you are a hairs breadth from defending the idea you have spend so much time and effort denying. All this aside, I can assure you that the term "god" is certainly currently used in such a way as to render it hopelessly ambiguous. The fact that people have agreed at times in the past that this referent means something common to them is undeniable. Is far from clear, however, that they all shared the exact same ideas upon the subject, and it is very clear that they did not agree for very long. History shows us a rather large number of disagreements actually, that have lead to the various churches splitting in to a sectarian "dust" over time. Western Religion has been nothing if not inherently prone to fragmentation, and this is a matter of easy historical research. This would lead to an easy support of my claim, that the term "god" is rather fragmented in its meanings. But you go a bit further, and claim that believers use the term to "order their lives". I would suggest that they do not use a definition to order their lives, but laws laid down by this unknowable thing, their god. The definition and the laws are quite seperate, and it does not require god to be trancendent or transendental in order for followers to agree that sunday is the sabath, or to build a church, or to hold mass. 180 Proof wrote: This may be true but only, I think, on solipsistic grounds ... We shall see. Perhaps atheism is only plausable on solipsistic grounds ...

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/16/09 - 09:08 AM:

#107

Makarismo said

"I agree that "God" is not going anywhere, and like "shit" it will be used in a great many different ways despite our definition. The act of defining a word is actually so artificial as to remove it from common usage. "

The purpose of defining a word is to clarify what it means, not remove it from common usage.

What exactly is this God concept if it is not an actual entity or being?

The bible I read referred to God as a "spirit" the spirit of God did this and that.

God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and in truth"

Now this second bible qutation I think more accurately describes what God is.

Like the word Satan. Jesus said to Peter "get the behind me Satan... and goes on to describe what satan is, (which is not the way we define the word) for thou desirest the things of the world and not the things of god.

Too many people are content to argue the existence of God and not even discussing what God is.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/17/09 - 10:18 AM:	#108
james1951 wrote: makarismos wrote: I agree that "God" is not going anywhere, and like "shit" it will be used in a great many different ways <em>despite</em> our definition. The act of <em>defining</em> a word is actually so <em>artificial</em> as to remove it from common usage. The purpose of defining a word is to clarify what it means, not remove it from common usage. That is why people define words, but they would do better to look to the use of a word, rather than listen to only the definition. I supose a definition can be used for a meaning of any particular word in any particular instance, but it should never be suposed that the definition comes before the word; though we do sometimes believe that this is the case. Just think about how children learn words. They do not study a dictonary, and then use the definitions in each definition to learn all words. They speak the language first, and then once they have learned enough they can perhaps learn what a new word might mean by refering to a dictionary definition. I would suggest though, that the dictionary rarely answers the question "what does this word mean", rather it gives a kind of general sense that a word might be used in. One learns to use the word ultimatly through using it ones self. Because of this it is worth remembering that a definition is only another attempt at communication, not a hard rule which a word must be subjected to in order to provide meaning. james1951 wrote: What exactly is this God concept if it is not an actual entity or being? The bible I read referred to God as a "spirit" the spirit of God did this and that. God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and in truth" Now this second bible qutation I think more accurately describes what God is. Like the word Satan. Jesus said to Peter "get the behind me Satan... and goes on to describe what satan is, (which is not the way we define the word) for thou desirest the things of the world and not the things of god. Too many people are content to argue the existence of God and not even discussing what God is. I'm not too interested in bible quotes, but I do understand your desire to show that "satan" is an oftern mistranslated word. The trouble is that though the roots of the word "satan" meant something quite different than it now does for many millions of people, the word "satan" does bring to mind a red guy with horns in the popular imagination. This is the same problem as that encountered by a person who insists that Centepede means one hundred feet, because of its roots "ped" (meaning foot" and "cent" meaning hundred. The origonal root words mean something quite different from the insect we refer to by their combined name. We can also entierly change the meaning of a word within a generation: "gay" no longer means happy, but rather "homosexual". Language is fluid, and atempts to pin down a definition that holds true for all time are doomed to falure. The term God is likewise ever changing. It might mean love, it might mean a guy on a cloud with a beard, it might mean the universe itself, it might mean vishnu, or sheba, or thor, it might mean "more powerful" or "more skilled" (i.e. "I am a god of poker"), or anything else we want. I think a conversation about he god we are talking about is probably more profitable than a definition.

james1951
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 49

Posted 06/17/09 - 11:26 AM:

#109

Makarismos wrote:

The purpose of defining a word is to clarify what it means, not remove it from common usage.

That is why people define words, but they would do better to look to the use of a word, rather than listen to only the definition. I supose a definition can be used for a meaning of any particular word in any particular instance, but it should never be suposed that the definition comes before the word; though we do sometimes believe that this is the case.

Just think about how children learn words. They do not study a dictonary, and then use the definitions in each definition to learn all words. They speak the language first, and then once they have learned enough they can perhaps learn what a new word might mean by refering to a dictionary definition. I would suggest though, that the dictionary rarely answers the question "what does this word mean", rather it gives a kind of general sense that a word might be used in. One learns to use the word ultimatly through using it ones self.

Because of this it is worth remembering that a definition is only another attempt at communication, not a hard rule which a word must be subjected to in order to provide meaning.

I'm not too interested in bible quotes, but I do understand your desire to show that "satan" is an oftern mistranslated word.

The trouble is that though the roots of the word "satan" meant something quite different than it now does for many millions of people, the word "satan" does bring to mind a red guy with horns in the popular imagination. This is the same problem as that encountered by a person who insists that Centepede means one hundred feet, because of its roots "ped" (meaning foot" and "cent" meaning hundred. The origonal root words mean something quite different from the insect we refer to by their combined name. We can also entierly change the meaning of a word within a generation: "gay" no longer means happy, but rather "homosexual". Language is fluid, and atempts to pin down a definition that holds true for all time are doomed to falure.

The term God is likewise ever changing. It might mean love, it might mean a guy on a cloud with a beard, it might mean the universe itself, it might mean vishnu, or sheba, or thor, it might mean "more powerful" or "more skilled" (i.e. "I am a god of poker"), or anything else we want. I think a conversation about he god we are talking about is probably more profitable than a definition.[/quote]

Exactly. The meaningings of words often change. So why on earth do we think we can accurately gauge the meaning of an ancient language with any real degree of actually. I really believe most of the bible was never meant to be taken literally. I believe in those days people spoke in metaphors and knew they were speaking metaphorically. We are the idiots thinking these expressions were meant historically and literally.

There was a guy on a website called blogtv whose show was called "God is a label" I think he was trying to say that God didnt exist but IMHO what he was doing was giving a true existence because you can't label something that doesn't exist at least as an ide .... dictionary.com ..def of existence...

to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.

To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.

2. To be manifest in any manner; to continue to be; as, great evils existed in his reign.

The fact that people do things in the name of their "god" shows a manner in which god is made manifest.

What I am interested in is what is under the label "God", what is in the bottle labelled "god".

Why would you not be interested in bible quotations. Those quotations express concepts. Concepts that are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago.

Not only does the word satan not mean the same as it did, the words satan expresses a concept. The way Jesus expressed it was in showing that we have different agendas and questioning what our agendas are. Peter you want me to be a live person but I must die so that what I really am (the spirit of truth and righteousness in man) can be made manifest..

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/17/09 - 01:31 PM:	#110
Absolutely, God exists. God exists in the imagination. And sometimes it seems like our imagination is all we have.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.