Does God exist?

[Falvlun]

Or do people not think defining "God" is a good first step?

It is, but often you will just get people reiterating the characteristics of their specific God, rather than over-arching characteristics that a thing/being must have in order to even be considered a God. See my short-lived thread: Components of a God

Personally, I agree with the definition given by Copernicus (post 9 of that thread):
"A god is first and foremost an intelligent agent that has absolute control over some aspect of reality."

No other characteristic is as central or necessary to the concept of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I agree with the definition given by Copernicus (post 9 of that thread):
"A god is first and foremost an intelligent agent that has absolute control over some aspect of reality."

No other characteristic is as central or necessary to the concept of God.

I don't think that definition is complete (I meet that definition of "god"), but I think you and Copernicus are right in the sense that a god is an entity that exerts some sort of control.

 

[Autodidact]

But they also say that God appeared as a burning bush before Moses, and that Jesus (who they consider to be God) walked the Earth and talked to people, among other things.

And IIRC, Mormons believe that Joseph Smith had a vision where he literally saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Also, if people can perceive God by some unknown sixth sense, then they're still perceiving God.

Yes, that's where it gets confusing. God can't be seen, except when He can.

 

[Zadok]

This thread is to debate the question of the existence of God.
I hope we can have reasoned, civilized conversation about this important issue.

So:
Does God exist?

I believe that G-d exist - I believe that G-d is a being so highly evolved that they are capable of engineering and instituting what we currently understand as creation.

Zadok

 

[Autodidact]

It is, but often you will just get people reiterating the characteristics of their specific God, rather than over-arching characteristics that a thing/being must have in order to even be considered a God. See my short-lived thread: Components of a God

Personally, I agree with the definition given by Copernicus (post 9 of that thread):
"A god is first and foremost an intelligent agent that has absolute control over some aspect of reality."

No other characteristic is as central or necessary to the concept of God.

But doesn't it have to be supernatural?

 

[Willamena]

What criteria distinguishes a god from other things?

Usually, not being other things.

Elliot says: It seems to me the simplest definition of God (thank you, Mr. William of Ockham) is 'Creator'. That seems too simple to me, because doesn't it include every painter and chef in the world?

Every sentient being.

Evelyonion says:

"A super-natural intelligence and/or creator" I say we would then need to say what we mean by "super-natural."

My definition is: A powerful creative being who cannot be perceived with any physical sense.

How useful.

What do people think of these definitions? I'm trying to define the word "god" itself, not a specific God. What do people mean when they use this word? What do they all have in common? How can we tell whether a specific entity/being meets the definition or not?

Remember, a definition is neither a name nor an example. A useful definition is a set of criteria for determining whether something fits in the category or not.

Thoughts?

Well, I don't even agree with your given definition of "definition", but no matter.

I would say what they all have in common is an image of superior being. Different people will mean different things when they say "god," because each might hold a particular image of what "superior being" entails. The image may be of something, or a vast nothing, or substance; it may be inclusive of self, or exclusive and monistic; it may be reflective, as of 'self', or completely unreflective. No specific entity could meet the criteria of superior being, if "entity" is "being" (of the inferior type).

 

[Falvlun]

Hmm. That's a very good question.

It seems to me that our definitions are starting to involve concepts that I at least reject. I personally reject the idea of any sort of objective "heirarchy of being", but I based my definition of God on such an idea. Now you're bringing up the supernatural, which is another concept I personally reject.

Is it necessary to believe in these concepts to believe in God?

Quick straw poll: is there anyone here who believes in God who doesn't think that God is supernatural (however you define the term) and "above" you in some sense?

Well, if God exists, then wouldn't he essentially be the most natural thing around? Personally, I'm not a fan of the term "supernatural" since it merely defines those things we haven't yet found to exist in nature. If we found them to exist, then they would be absorbed into what we consider natural.

 

[Willamena]

Quick straw poll: is there anyone here who believes in God who doesn't think that God is supernatural (however you define the term) and "above" you in some sense?

Supernatural, no. "Above me," certainly, the latter being a metaphoric image.

 

[Zadok]

Yes, that's where it gets confusing. God can't be seen, except when He can.

Is such a concept any less confusing than TV would be to someone 500 years ago?

Zadok

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, if God exists, then wouldn't he essentially be the most natural thing around? Personally, I'm not a fan of the term "supernatural" since it merely defines those things we haven't yet found to exist in nature. If we found them to exist, then they would be absorbed into what we consider natural.

That's the thing: in the sense that we're using the term, I take "supernatural" to imply the claim that there is a "natural" realm that we perceive and some sort of "supernatural" realm that we don't, and that these realms have different rules.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think that definition is complete (I meet that definition of "god"), but I think you and Copernicus are right in the sense that a god is an entity that exerts some sort of control.

I beg your pardon, but I highly doubt you have absolute control over anything, even yourself.

Although, if it helps, Copernicus did add the qualifier: " By "control", I mean that the god can manipulate that aspect of reality merely by willing a change to happen."

But doesn't it have to be supernatural?

What exactly is your definition of supernatural? "Above" nature? Isn't that just another way of saying "control over"? Outside of nature? What does that even mean? Doesn't nature simply include everything that exists?

 

[Diederick]

God probably doesn't exist. I have never come across compelling evidence for the existence of a Deity and in face of all that the world of science is discovering, I don't really see why one would need a Deity to explain 'everything'.

Though it is pretty obvious we're ****** as a species, noticing we are going to collide with another solarsystem, taking in account the fact that earth's resources will eventually be depleted and then there is our lovely sun who is, besides the main cause of skin cancer, going to blow up in our face one day. I still don't think sticking our heads in the sand is the solution.

I don't think anyone really needs God to keep their spirit up while facing certain death and annihilation of our species. We just need to get *****-slapped every now and then to get back to reality and on with our business of making what time we have a jolly good one.

 

[Willamena]

But those are never going to give you the same thing. (for any sensible idea of "subtract")

Right. They give you "God".

 

[Willamena]

How is that an "image of 'God'"?

It is an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond').

 

[PolyHedral]

Right. They give you "God".

So God is both the entire universe and nothing at all? I don't suppose you were paying attention to the "Can God decide the rules?" thread?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I beg your pardon, but I highly doubt you have absolute control over anything, even yourself.

Limited control can be construed as absolute control in a limited sense.

Although, if it helps, Copernicus did add the qualifier: " By "control", I mean that the god can manipulate that aspect of reality merely by willing a change to happen."

In that case, I'd disagree with the definition. It excludes many god-concepts that people actually believe in.

It is an image of reality that exists beyond 'something' and 'nothing' (the eternal 'beyond').

And how is that an "image of 'God'"?

 

[thedope]

Animus animates animal. Thought word deed.

 

[Willamena]

So God is both the entire universe and nothing at all? I don't suppose you were paying attention to the "Can God decide the rules?" thread?

If subtracting everything and nothing nets you 'the entire universe and nothing at all' then I don't think you've succeeded in the first step.

And how is that an "image of 'God'"?

Can you rephrase the question?

 

[Willamena]

Limited control can be construed as absolute control in a limited sense.

Ooh, but it's an issue of free will. Is that you in there ('knock, knock' on skull) doing things, or is it just the universe at play?

 

[Falvlun]

Limited control can be construed as absolute control in a limited sense.

For example?

Again, I find it hard to believe that a human can display absolute control over anything, however limited. I mean, even our hamsters escape.

In that case, I'd disagree with the definition. It excludes many god-concepts that people actually believe in.

For example?

Do you have a different qualifier in mind that would work?