Atheists: does God exist?

[Augustus]

I appreciate the frustration of atheists who want a clear definition of God. The problem is, there can't be one. The idea of God comes from the sense of awe and mystery we have when we look out over the universe. We label the source of that "God." But define? The whole point is that he/she/it is something that defies our understanding, that cannot be held within words. Perhaps the Tao Te Ching captures what cannot be captured: "Something there is..."

Or Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

Sort of like if you experience a sense of awe witnessing a beautiful natural environment, your description of this will never be able to recreate the same sense in others. The wordless intuitive appreciation of what you feel will always be more meaningful/profound that the verbal description.

 

[Kfox]

The way the question is stated, there only needs to be two choices from which to select - yes or no.

No; the question is insufficient. People who ask those kinda questions usually have an idea of which God they are talking about, and we're supposed to read their minds in order to know which God they assume to be the real and only God. Let's say for example if you're a particular sect of Hinduism, and you you believe Kumari of Nepal is a God. Well the answer would be yes; what YOU call God does exist (Kumari is still alive) but I don't call it God, I call it something else (human). So before asking an atheist if God exist, you need to explain which God you are talking about.

 

[Kfox]

I appreciate the frustration of atheists who want a clear definition of God. The problem is, there can't be one. The idea of God comes from the sense of awe and mystery we have when we look out over the universe. We label the source of that "God."

Then he should have defined God that way.

But define? The whole point is that he/she/it is something that defies our understanding, that cannot be held within words.

There is no such a thing that defies all understanding and cannot be held within words. Perhaps it may defy your understand and can't be held within the limitations of your words; but this is not the case for all of us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then he should have defined God that way.

Em, that was not a definition.

There is no such a thing that defies all understanding and cannot be held within words. Perhaps it may defy your understand and can't be held within the limitations of your words; but this is not the case for all of us.

I'm so very sorry that you haven't experienced this. I feel like a musician meeting someone who is deaf, an artist meeting someone who is blind.

 

[Kfox]

Em, that was not a definition.

The feeling of awe in the something majestic could be a definition

I'm so very sorry that you haven't experienced this. I feel like a musician meeting someone who is deaf, an artist meeting someone who is blind.

Perhaps you can give an example of something that can't be held within words.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The feeling of awe in the something majestic could be a definition

If you go back and read again, it is not the feeling of awe that is God. Rather, God is the source of that feeling. And that is hardly what I would call a definition.

 

[Kfox]

If you go back and read again, it is not the feeling of awe that is God. Rather, God is the source of that feeling. And that is hardly what I would call a definition.

Is this an outside source? Or something within each of us causing these feelings?

 

[Augustus]

The feeling of awe in the something majestic could be a definition

Perhaps you can give an example of something that can't be held within words.

Words can describe just about anything, that doesn't mean they can meaningfully recreate the experience though.

Words can't simply make people experience things they have never experienced in the same way as people who have experienced them.

You can't know what it's like to be drunk without ever drinking, or the feeling of doing some pills at a rave if you've never done it. Anyone who has experienced it understands wordlessly.

You must have heard things being described before you personally experienced them, then when you had that experience I doubt you always thought "waste of time, should just have read about it in a book as it was no different".

Some people in the world feel such an intense sense of shame that they kill their sister to preserve "family honour'. I can understand the logic behind such extreme honour culture, and can understand why it happens in an 'academic' context. But I am absolutely incapable of experiencing that emotion, there is no way that feeling can be recreated in my brain because it is completely alien to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is this an outside source? Or something within each of us causing these feelings?

Good question. Wish I had a definite answer. I don't. I function on the assumption that it is outside. But that's not something I can prove. Nor can anyone prove the reverse.

 

[rstrats]

No; the question is insufficient. People who ask those kinda questions usually have an idea of which God they are talking about, and we're supposed to read their minds in order to know which God they assume to be the real and only God.

It wouldn't matter. My comment would apply to any "god".

 

[Kfox]

Words can describe just about anything, that doesn't mean they can meaningfully recreate the experience though.

It doesn't have to. As long as you give a description in your own words, even if it isn't a very good description, it's still a description.

 

[Kfox]

It wouldn't matter. My comment would apply to any "god".

Anything called God? Really? There is no limit to what theists can deify, even people and things that are as real as you or I, remember the question is whether or not God EXISTS. There was a President of Ethiopia that Rastafarians deified; to them he was equal to what Christians consider Jesus to be. He died in 1972, but before he died his existence was very real. Now wouldn't it be absurd for someone to proclaim that just because some may call him God, he never existed? Kumari is still alive today and is worshiped by some Hindus, there are those who worship the Sun, Nature, things that are obviously quite real. As an atheist, I recognize what some might choose to call God may exist, but I don't call it God, I call those things something else (Halle, or Kumari are people, the Sun is a star, nature is our environment etc.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I appreciate the frustration of atheists who want a clear definition of God. The problem is, there can't be one. The idea of God comes from the sense of awe and mystery we have when we look out over the universe. We label the source of that "God." But define? The whole point is that he/she/it is something that defies our understanding, that cannot be held within words. Perhaps the Tao Te Ching captures what cannot be captured: "Something there is..."

IMO, the term "God" is what people use when they want to take the incomprehensible universe and shove it into a manageable box with a relatable face on it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Perhaps you can give an example of something that can't be held within words.

Give an example using what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The line between gods and "not gods" is by no means special or uniquely challenging among commonly used words.

That's not true.

When it comes to the word "god," we have certain things that are categorically not gods: angels, demons, ghosts, etc.

By usage, we can infer that anything that a monotheist believes in - other than their god - is by implication not a god.

We don't have this dynamic with your other examples. There's no list of things that are categorically "not democracy" or "not science" that butt up against actual democracy or science.

 

[Augustus]

That's not true.

When it comes to the word "god," we have certain things that are categorically not gods: angels, demons, ghosts, etc.

By usage, we can infer that anything that a monotheist believes in - other than their god - is by implication not a god.

We don't have this dynamic with your other examples. There's no list of things that are categorically "not democracy" or "not science" that butt up against actual democracy or science.

“Monotheists” seem to believe in anywhere between 0 and 3 gods per other people’s observations.

Monotheism is not the only form of “theism” also.

Many people will people will claim anything that does not follow “the scientific method” is not science.

The point is not that one person believes they can demarcate the thing in question, it’s that there is no agreement in general.

Any word can have a subjective definition, but many have no clearly agreed on definition that precisely demarcates them from “not …”.

 

[Augustus]

It doesn't have to. As long as you give a description in your own words, even if it isn't a very good description, it's still a description

The point is that the description cannot describe the concept in a way that conveys its main essence.

I could describe a tree, a golf course and a frog as “a green thing” but this would not let anyone who had never seen one understand what they are or how they differ from each other.

I disagree with your claim that this doesn’t matter because you “described them all”.

A bad description can make you understand something even less than not knowing anything about it at all.

It is often better to know nothing than to know the wrong thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

“Monotheists” seem to believe in anywhere between 0 and 3 gods per other people’s observations.

But that's the point: we determine what a god is by how each person understands "god." There is no objective definition of the term.

Monotheism is not the only form of “theism” also.

No, but it serves as a useful yardstick to infer a lot of "not god" things.

Many people will people will claim anything that does not follow “the scientific method” is not science.

You missed my point. That's okay.

The point is not that one person believes they can demarcate the thing in question, it’s that there is no agreement in general.

Any word can have a subjective definition, but many have no clearly agreed on definition that precisely demarcates them from “not …”.

Again: that's what makes the term "god" rather unique.

 

[Augustus]

But that's the point: we determine what a god is by how each person understands "god." There is no objective definition of the term.

Yes agreed. It’s just your claim that this makes it unique that does not follow.

No, but it serves as a useful yardstick to infer a lot of "not god" things.

Just like “the scientific method” serves a good yardstick, albeit a very imperfect one.

Again: that's what makes the term "god" rather unique.

The term is unique because it functions like many other words in having many subjective definitions that are not agreed upon?

 

[blü 2]

I'm so very sorry that you haven't experienced this. I feel like a musician meeting someone who is deaf, an artist meeting someone who is blind.

So "God" is an experience, an idea, not an independent real entity, you say? God is a phenomenon of one's brain, and so can't be found out there in reality?

That seems fair.