Does any supernatural god exist?

[Ajax]

I guess when you have received miracles that defies logic, it is a lot easier to believe.

That is why most churches provide new "miracles" all the time....but, as any information is readily available now, people become skeptics gradually.

Here is even a greater story, Lazarus was raised from the dead after being embalmed or a virgin had a child created in her womb without knowing a man.

If John writes that the miracles are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, why Matthew and the other synoptic writers mentioned the "miracle" of curing Peter's mother in law from fever, but not the resurrection of Jesus' best friend Lazarus? Was Matthew absent from the "classroom" that day and nobody told him? As for the virgin birth I have come to the conclusion that Matthew deliberately mistranslated Isaiah 7:14, as he did with another 17 "prophecies" in his gospel. Nobody can be that thick.

Yes… amazing stories but I stand on the believing side.

Well done. Everyone has the right to believe as one wants to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Well done. Everyone has the right to believe as one wants to.

Not really as a fact. Rather it is a cultural norm in some cultures and thus for objective evidence without evidence, if we are to play that game, that everything must be done with objective evidence.
Neither religion, science or philosphy have ever been able to do that.

 

[Ajax]

Not really as a fact. Rather it is a cultural norm in some cultures and thus for objective evidence without evidence, if we are to play that game, that everything must be done with objective evidence.
Neither religion, science or philosphy have ever been able to do that.

I know, but again at the end of the day, you can not deny to people believing as they want.

 

[Tomef]

I've seen threads of...
Theists: Does God Exist?
Atheist: Does God Exist?

IMO That refers to one certain God

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

The idea of god has some very real effects for a lot of people. The fact that god doesn’t exist is kind of a moot point really; whether someone believes in the idea of god or not, they have an idea of what the word represents, and that idea is the whole existence of god, for each individual. Personally I think maybe it’s mostly a reaction to the uncertainty and randomness of life. Everyone agrees there are things we don’t know about. Giving that mystery a concrete existence, and then for some religions the personality of a caring but strict father, who offers love but assigns feelings of guilt to the asking of difficult and unsettling questions, makes life more manageable.

 

[Madsaac]

Not really as a fact. Rather it is a cultural norm in some cultures and thus for objective evidence without evidence, if we are to play that game, that everything must be done with objective evidence.
Neither religion, science or philosphy have ever been able to do that.

No, but science is always the closest, no matter what culture you have experienced.

And there it is, the nearest anyone will ever get to the 'truth'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The idea of god has some very real effects for a lot of people. The fact that god doesn’t exist is kind of a moot point really; whether someone believes in the idea of god or not, they have an idea of what the word represents, and that idea is the whole existence of god, for each individual. Personally I think maybe it’s mostly a reaction to the uncertainty and randomness of life. Everyone agrees there are things we don’t know about. Giving that mystery a concrete existence, and then for some religions the personality of a caring but strict father, who offers love but assigns feelings of guilt to the asking of difficult and unsettling questions, makes life more manageable.

Well, as far as I can tell it is not a fact that god doesn't exist and it is not a fact that god exists. But that is just me.

As some non-theists seem to substitute the farther with rationality and objective evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, but science is always the closest, no matter what culture you have experienced.

And there it is, the nearest anyone will ever get to the 'truth'.

Well, yes. But here is what science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Madsaac]

But you could believe in a metaphysical and ontological status of the universe that is without evidence. At least I have experinced that before with the group of religion none.

Unlikely, the universe is just there and does what it does because of science?

Religious none, which one are you? Agnostic, atheist but spiritual. Pardon my ignorance.

 

[Tomef]

Well, as far as I can tell it is not a fact that god doesn't exist and it is not a fact that god exists. But that is just me.

As some non-theists seem to substitute the farther with rationality and objective evidence.

Well maybe there is some sort of being out there, but whose idea of god would it correspond with? I think the notion there’s a god who just happens to fit one of the fictitious ideas humans have come up with can be dismissed entirely. I mean, the god of which religion? Of which sect of that religion? Of the interpretation of who that god is by which individual within that sect? The idea there’s a god who somehow fits all definitions is equally absurd. If there is some sort of god-like being out there, none of us knows anything about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unlikely, the universe is just there and does what it does because of science?

Religious none, which one are you? Agnostic, atheist but spiritual. Pardon my ignorance.

Well, the problem is that the universe is just there for the sentence "the universe is just there" is a part of the universe and not just that the universe is not human cogntion. But rather that individual subjectivity is a part of the universe, but not all of it.

As for what I am. Well, atheist, agnotstic. I am not spiritual, but limited cogntive, moral and cultural relativist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well maybe there is some sort of being out there, but whose idea of god would it correspond with? I think the notion there’s a god who just happens to fit one of the fictitious ideas humans have come up with can be dismissed entirely. I mean, the god of which religion? Of which sect of that religion? Of the interpretation of who that god is by which individual within that sect? The idea there’s a god who somehow fits all definitions is equally absurd. If there is some sort of god-like being out there, none of us knows anything about it.

The bold part is your cognition.
As for correspondence that the world is natural doesn't correspond to the world, but is a belief just like god.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, yes. But here is what science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Yes, I might agree and it is a good question and one that will be talked about for ages. However, these judgements are are quite often just opinions. And where do we get these opinions from, some type of research or experience that may or may not come under the guise of science but they are still at a decision arrived at, through a process.

And it is quite often the best way to reach the correct decision.

 

[Tomef]

As for correspondence that the world is natural doesn't correspond to the world, but is a belief just like god.

Sorry I don’t get what you mean.

I can’t take the idea that, if some all powerful being did exist, he/it would just happen to correspond to some Christian’s notions about who god should be, as worth considering. Either all human religions describe real gods, or none of them do, by that yardstick, and if that’s the case it wouldn’t make any sense either, as they don’t allow for each other’s existence.

No, the only reasonable notion is that while it is impossible to know that there isn’t some sort of god being type thing somewhere, the idea that some people imagining and writing books about a kind of god made those gods real is just beyond any reasonable consideration. If you accept that, you would also need to consider Cthulhu as a real possibility. The only difference between Cthulhu and some other god people actually believe in is that Cthulhu is acknowledged as fictional. There is no other difference - they are all characters in books written by people about imaginary events and beings.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, the problem is that the universe is just there for the sentence "the universe is just there" is a part of the universe and not just that the universe is not human cogntion. But rather that individual subjectivity is a part of the universe, but not all of it.

As for what I am. Well, atheist, agnotstic. I am not spiritual, but limited cogntive, moral and cultural relativist.

The first two sentences are a little confusing, sorry, may be a little beyond me but interested

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry I don’t get what you mean.

I can’t take the idea that, if some all powerful being did exist, he/it would just happen to correspond to some Christian’s notions about who god should be, as worth considering. Either all human religions describe real gods, or none of them do, by that yardstick, and if that’s the case it wouldn’t make any sense either, as they don’t allow for each other’s existence.

No, the only reasonable notion is that while it is impossible to know that there isn’t some sort of god being type thing somewhere, the idea that some people imagining and writing books about a kind of god made those gods real is just beyond any reasonable consideration. If you accept that, you would also need to consider Cthulhu as a real possibility. The only difference between Cthulhu and some other god people actually being in is that Cthulhu is acknowledged as fictional. There is no other difference - they are all characters in books written by people about imaginary events and beings.

Well, the same for what the world is as such and not just god. It is unknowable as for strong skepticism.
In effect you are saying that the world is what makes sense to you as per reason. That is rationalism in effect.

 

[Tomef]

In effect you are saying that the world is what makes sense to you as per reason

No, I didn’t say anything of the sort. The world is whatever it is. No fully comprehensive explanation exists in human thought.

That’s a separate issue, though. It has no bearing on whether imagining gods makes them real or not.

 

[Ajax]

Well, yes. But here is what science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I didn’t say anything of the sort. The world is whatever it is. No fully comprehensive explanation exists in human thought.

That’s a separate issue, though. It has no bearing on whether imagining gods makes them real or not.

No, for real it is the same as for e.g. if it is real that the universe is physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 91496

But that is thankfully is not science as science.
So please learn to differentiate between objective, intersubjective and individually subjective.

I like science, but that I like science is not science.

 

[Tomef]

No, for real it is the same as for e.g. if it is real that the universe is physical.

Not really. What we experience as the universe presents itself as being made of the same kind of stuff as we are, and perceivable using our senses or through the testing of hypotheses. Maybe there’s some other way of interpreting all of that no-one has been able to conceive of yet, maybe it’s all a simulation, or whatever. The point is that the way we think of it is a combination of interactions, as in actor/network theory.

The idea of a god is completely different, it is something we humans made up entirely from whole cloth. There is nothing ‘out there’ we can perceive or test that corresponds to it. It is purely a figment of human imagination.

Comparing the two is like comparing the taste of a cheese sandwich as you eat it and what you imagine the ambrosia of the gods might have tasted like.