Does God Exist: Maybe?

[CynthiaCypher]

How?

Attributing a religious experience to God involves two steps:

1. "I experienced 'X'"
2. "X feels like God."

The person with the experience may be able to speak to step 1, but nobody, including that person, is in a position to make any sort of determination about step 2 until we establish what God "feels like".

I have had a series of synchronistic events happen which could only be attributed to a divine presence.

 

[Thief]

One can suggest possible attributes to anything, but that really doesn't mean they should be accepted. More so, not all attributes would be compatible with this thing, even though I haven't made an in depth definition. There will necessarily be limitations based on what we know, and will know about the natural world.

I don't see a reason to define God though if the definition is going to be nothing more than guess work, that I couldn't support anyway. Mainly because after I provided the definition, then there would be debate about whether or not my definition was credible, how I came up with such a definition, and then what evidence I used to support my definition. So it would really lead to a debate that wasn't on topic anyway, and really a waste of everyone's time.

With this current OP that I created, I'm not saying that God was the catalyst. I'm simply opening up the possibility. I'm not arguing that it is a must, or even probable, just that it is a possibility. Now, it is just as possible that God is not the catalyst, but I proposed the idea simply because there have been arguments that God can't exist because nothing existed before the Big Bang, or the like.

The whole purpose of the OP isn't to prove that God exists. Just that a neutral position is the one that is supported by the evidence. The evidence being that there is none. So to either confirm or deny the existence of God, rests on a belief. I don't think either one is better. I don't think either one is more probable. I'm just saying that both are options, and if one chooses either one, it is more of a belief without evidence. And that is fine.

Well I can appreciate a neutral stance....however.
I suspect God is not altogether neutral.

Attributes?...of course.
Because I believe in Something Greater than me.....
God is ...bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
He wouldn't be the Almighty, otherwise.

That He holds the advantage, His position takes away neutrality.
Proximity to Him will have requirements.
His heaven.....His peace....His standard.

IF God exists?....He has the upper hand....a stacked deck.
I doubt He will be neutral.

 

[Father Heathen]

Could there exist some sort of force or entity that could be called "god"? Maybe.
Does this "god" exist in the way we typically perceive and portray the concept (angry, anthopomorphized, etc.) ? Nope.

 

[Thief]

Could there exist some sort of force or entity that could be called "god"? Maybe.
Does this "god" exist in the way we typically perceive and portray the concept (angry, anthopomorphized, etc.) ? Nope.

So He doesn't look human....so what?

His image would be spiritual...not physical.

Are you implying we should ready ourselves for conversation with a disembodied Voice?...as it was with Moses?
Or do you prefer pillars of smoke and fire?

The text I read, indicated a lot of people saw this, as it lead their way....
Smoke by day...fire by night.

Have another 'image'?

 

[Father Heathen]

So He doesn't look human....so what?

His image would be spiritual...not physical.

Are you implying we should ready ourselves for conversation with a disembodied Voice?...as it was with Moses?
Or do you prefer pillars of smoke and fire?

The text I read, indicated a lot of people saw this, as it lead their way....
Smoke by day...fire by night.

Have another 'image'?

Via gorillagram.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have had a series of synchronistic events happen which could only be attributed to a divine presence.

That's an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't think of other explanations doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't think of other explanations doesn't mean they don't exist.

You weren't there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You weren't there.

If I was there, would I realize that you're omniscient?

If not, then it doesn't change what I said.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If I was there, would I realize that you're omniscient?

If not, then it doesn't change what I said.

We all want to know if God exist on our terms...objectively. We want the smoking gun. But maybe that smoking gun can't be seen objectively, maybe it can only be seen on a purelt subjective and personal level. I had a series of synchronistic events happen to me that point to God. The events weren't visions or voices in my head but real external events that pointed to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We all want to know if God exist on our terms...objectively. We want the smoking gun. But maybe that smoking gun can't be seen objectively, maybe it can only be seen on a purelt subjective and personal level. I had a series of synchronistic events happen to me that point to God. The events weren't visions or voices in my head but real external events that pointed to God.

I notice you're changing your terminology: before, you said that it "could only be attributed to a divine presence." Now you're saying it "pointed to God." It sounds like you don't really know as you initially claimed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I notice you're changing your terminology: before, you said that it "could only be attributed to a divine presence." Now you're saying it "pointed to God." It sounds like you don't really know as you initially claimed.

Same thing. Now stick to the subject. Is it possible that God can be known?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Same thing.

What?

Now stick to the subject. Is it possible that God can be known?

Depends on what one means by "God", I think.

 

[McBell]

So what does this all mean then?

It means that anyone taking a definitive stance does so out of faith/wishful thinking/etc.

I personally have not seen anything that convinces me that any god exists.
Does that mean that no god exists?
Not to me.
But there are plenty of people who claim that it does.



Now to be perfectly honest, I sincerely hope for entertainments sake that there is a god.

 

[fallingblood]

What if a person had a personal religious experience? I think these people can be aware whether there is a God or not.

If a person had a truly religious experience, that came directly from God, it still does not translate to actual evidence. I have investigated many religious experiences, and each one always has another explanation. And in the end, such an experience is still oriented around faith; faith that such an experience was religious.

 

[fallingblood]

If we are doing science (and there is no reason not to) all of this is irrelevant. The question is: does your definition predict reality correctly?

Without knowing what God is at all, you cannot even begin answer that question, and so you cannot support "God exists."

And neither was I trying to support that God exists. I think trying to support such an argument would be pointless, in the same way that I think trying to support the view that God doesn't exist is pointless.

My argument is for a neutrality. I like what Mestemia stated in this thread: It means that anyone taking a definitive stance does so out of faith/wishful thinking/etc.

I personally have not seen anything that convinces me that any god exists.
Does that mean that no god exists?
Not to me.
But there are plenty of people who claim that it does.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Depends on what one means by "God", I think.

Wittgenstein would say language does not help there.

 

[fallingblood]

I think that can be summarised.

There is a possibility that God works in my local McDonalds, you might not believe it but I think it means we can't know for sure.

I think you misread what I said.

My whole argument can be summarized as:

There is a possibility that God exists.
There is a possibility that God does not exist. (When I say God, I'm being all inclusive, as in I'm referring to any possible god).
In the end, if one takes a definitive stance, it is based so on faith.

 

[fallingblood]

But the average physicist will know more about neutrinos than the average lay person. Does the average theologian know more about God than the average lay person?

I think you're missing the point of the OP. I'm not arguing that God exists. This is how I summed up my initial argument: So what does this all mean then? I think it means that we simply can not know if there is a God or not. Sure, there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate, but I think they all fail for the simple reason that they have no evidence. Both sides are based on faith, and usually blind faith.

I believe that God exists. I'm not saying God exists though. I acknowledge that my belief in God is based on faith, not evidence. I wouldn't argue for either definitive; that God does or does not exist, as there is no evidence either way.

My point then is that there is a possibility that God exists. There is no actual evidence against such a possibility.

There is also a possibility that God does not exists. There is no actual evidence against such a possibility.

In the end, both definitive stances are based on faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you misread what I said.

My whole argument can be summarized as:

There is a possibility that God exists.
There is a possibility that God does not exist. (When I say God, I'm being all inclusive, as in I'm referring to any possible god).
In the end, if one takes a definitive stance, it is based so on faith.

My position is that the evidence points more toward God not existing than existing. Would you consider this "definitive"?

 

[McBell]

My position is that the evidence points more toward God not existing than existing. Would you consider this "definitive"?

One might be able to "definitively" prove that some concepts of god are not true, or do not exist, however, to claim that it proves that there is absolutely no god makes far to many assumptions.