Atheists: does God exist?

[Kfox]

Give an example using what?

Give an example of something that exists, (other than God) that can't be described using words.

 

[Kfox]

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

An argument can be made that this can be applied to just about everything. Does this mean nothing can be described using words?

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.

If your limitations of the English language prevents you from describing a frog, a tree, and a golf course to nothing more than "a green thing", you shouldn't assume everybody is limited that way.

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.

Good or bad, helpful or harmful, it is still a description.

 

[McBell]

Give an example of something that exists, (other than God) that can't be described using words.

Um...
a person's unique subjective experience of a feeling or emotion like pure joy, deep love, or profound grief?

 

[Kfox]

Um...
a person's unique subjective experience of a feeling or emotion like pure joy, deep love, or profound grief?

Joy, love, or grief can be described using words, even though you might find the description insufficient

 

[Augustus]

An argument can be made that this can be applied to just about everything. Does this mean nothing can be described using words?

Nothing can be described perfectly using words (unless the other person has directly experienced what is being referred to) just like a map can’t perfectly replicate a territory.

Some things can be described relatively easily to people who haven’t experienced them directly though.

I can describe the difference between a puddle and the sea to anyone who understands what water is pretty easily and accurately even if they are unfamiliar with either concept.

I wouldn’t easily be able to describe the difference between house music and techno to someone from Ancient Greece though.

How well things can be described largely depends on how unique they are and how much they can be explained by the building blocks provided by other experiences.

Good or bad, helpful or harmful, it is still a description.

The point is that some things cannot be described in a way that is meaningful to those who have not directly experienced them (no matter how eloquent the describer), whereas other things can be described relatively accurately and meaningfully.

All things can be described badly and in a manner that misleads more than enlightens but thinking that is the point being made would be to very much miss it.

 

[rstrats]

Anything called God? Really?

Yes. The 3rd option in Jayhawker Soule's poll suggestion in post #18 is still unnecessary regardless of which god is intended.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Or each person can answer based on their own understanding of what "God" means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

No, God is the object of the experience, the sensing. To give an analogy, I can experience seeing a tree, but my experience is not the tree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, God is the object of the experience, the sensing. To give an analogy, I can experience seeing a tree, but my experience is not the tree.

Having an experience or feeling doesn't necessarily mean that there's an external cause behind it.

The feeling of dread someone might experience at the top of the stairs doesn't imply that there must really be a monster in the dark basement.

 

[blü 2]

No, God is the object of the experience, the sensing. To give an analogy, I can experience seeing a tree, but my experience is not the tree.

But God never appears, never says, never does, and the only manner in which [he]'s known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain. [He] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being that has objective existence ie is found in nature, the world external to the self. (As a moment's reflection will show, this is true of all supernatural entities.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Having an experience or feeling doesn't necessarily mean that there's an external cause behind it.

I fully understand that. I can look right at that angel, and it only be a hallucination But generally speaking, we do tend to trust what we perceive. If we second guessed everything, I'm certain we would go insane.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But God never appears, never says, never does, and the only manner in which [he]'s known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain. [He] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being that has objective existence ie is found in nature, the world external to the self. (As a moment's reflection will show, this is true of all supernatural entities.)

If you are an atheist, I'm totally sympathetic.

The difference is, not everyone sees through the same lens. You say God never appears, but others see God in the beauty of a sunset, the profundity of a poem, or the faces of those who care for others.

I recently watched an old M Night Shyamalan movie called SIGNS. There is one scene that is unforgettable. It happens after alien lights appear over Mexico City, an awesome soliloquy where the former pastor is speaking to his brother.

"People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign—evidence—that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. It could be bad, it could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear...But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See, what you have to ask yourself is: what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?"​

​

​

 

[blü 2]

If you are an atheist, I'm totally sympathetic.

And if you're a believer, then outside the debate boards of RF I totally respect your right to hold such beliefs as you believe are true / helpful.

The difference is, not everyone sees through the same lens. You say God never appears, but others see God in the beauty of a sunset, the profundity of a poem, or the faces of those who care for others.

I can't see any basis for such views, much as there are many beautiful and moving moments in nature (as there are in art, in discovery, in personal relationships &c). Were there a god of such beauty, by my standards [his] morality would be appalling, sitting on [his] omnipotent hands while (as Browning's "old song" says) "the rogues flourish and honest folk droop", little kids die, other folk are lost to drugs, wars remain in fashion, we play the part of the frog in the boiling pot with global warming, &c &c &c.

I recently watched an old M Night Shyamalan movie called SIGNS. There is one scene that is unforgettable. It happens after alien lights appear over Mexico City, an awesome soliloquy where the former pastor is speaking to his brother.

"People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign—evidence—that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are looking at those fourteen lights in a very suspicious way. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. It could be bad, it could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear...But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope. See, what you have to ask yourself is: what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?"​

Certainly the latter, understanding as I more or less do through education and observation the many roles chance plays, starting (at the personal level) with the parents and the particular combination of their genes that everyone starts with. If there were a supervising Providence in the world, there would no longer be the "genetic lottery" and the winners of real lotteries would come from a different class to the random miscellany we see, no?

If anything good is going to happen on earth then it will in the main have to come from humans, not (unfortunately) despite them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But God never appears, never says, never does, and the only manner in which [he]'s known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain. [He] doesn't even have a description appropriate to a being that has objective existence ie is found in nature, the world external to the self. (As a moment's reflection will show, this is true of all supernatural entities.)

Has never appeared to you. Epiphanies, revelations, the sense of the nearness of, or unity with, one’s creator, generally fall in the category of first hand subjective experiences; although these can be shared, collective experiences.

How do you conclude that experiences alien to you are not as real as air and sunlight, to those whose lives have been touched by them? Or, to put it another way, Who are you to say there is no God?

 

[blü 2]

Has never appeared to you. Epiphanies, revelations, the sense of the nearness of, or unity with, one’s creator, generally fall in the category of first hand subjective experiences; although these can be shared, collective experiences.

I mean appear like your parents, friends, neighbors, appear, like the trees in your street, like the bees in your rose garden, the earth under your feet. In my head I can imagine all the gods, fairies, pixies, Voldemorts, I want, but none of them corresponds to a known entity out there in reality, the world external to the self which we know about via our senses

How do you conclude that experiences alien to you are not as real as air and sunlight, to those whose lives have been touched by them? Or, to put it another way, Who are you to say there is no God?

Easy. If gods were real you could show them to me, beginning with posting a photo or a video of an interview. But the only way they're known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, very often as the result of acculturation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I mean appear like your parents, friends, neighbors, appear, like the trees in your street, like the bees in your rose garden, the earth under your feet. In my head I can imagine all the gods, fairies, pixies, Voldemorts, I want, but none of them corresponds to a known entity out there in reality, the world external to the self which we know about via our senses

Easy. If gods were real you could show them to me, beginning with posting a photo or a video of an interview. But the only way they're known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, very often as the result of acculturation.

You don’t need me to show you anything; you could look for yourself, but you have to search within. That’s also, incidentally, where you’ll find serenity, happiness, and freedom from want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I fully understand that. I can look right at that angel, and it only be a hallucination But generally speaking, we do tend to trust what we perceive. If we second guessed everything, I'm certain we would go insane.

But just to be clear: we aren't actually talking about you perceiving God; we're talking about you perceiving awe, which you attribute to God. Right?

 

[blü 2]

You don’t need me to show you anything; you could look for yourself, but you have to search within. That’s also, incidentally, where you’ll find serenity, happiness, and freedom from want.

If I have to look 'within' then you understand the point I'm making ─ that gods aren't real, don't have objective existence, aren't found out there, but exist only as ideas, very often influenced by the particular culture.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If I have to look 'within' then you understand the point I'm making ─ that gods aren't real, don't have objective existence, aren't found out there, but exist only as ideas, very often influenced by the particular culture.

Yes, I take your point. For you, there are two distinct realms of existence, the external which is objectively real, and the internal which is subjective, imaginary, and unreliable. This model, in my opinion, has more holes in it than a colander.

 

[LadyJane]

Yes, I take your point. For you, there are two distinct realms of existence, the external which is objectively real, and the internal which is subjective, imaginary, and unreliable. This model, in my opinion, has more holes in it than a colander.

That's not how I read it. There is objective reality and there is, in each of us, a subjective human perception of that reality. Not necessarily imaginary and unreliable. We are fashioned with the senses that deliver our subjective experiences. Like any other organism only with fancier equipment. Imagining or not imagining gods. All existing within one reality.