Does God really exist? I want to know your views.

[Nakosis]

Good! Then I suggest you start using it. It actually works, while looking within for evidence that you can confirm for yourself' doesn't lead to any genuine truth. It's simply a childish way of convincing yourself that whatever you want to believe is true.

While I agree, I don't know if I'd call it childish as it seems to be SOP for many adults.

 

[QuestioningMind]

While I agree, I don't know if I'd call it childish as it seems to be SOP for many adults.

It's just an indication of how many adults refuse to leave childish things behind.

 

[Windwalker]

Not to devalue anything you say, I had at one time the same understanding as you.

However now what I believe is what I accepted as external is created by the subconscious mind. I understanding the feeling of this coming from an external source and the justification for believing this. I believe the subconscious mind capable of creating this experience. Not that I expect you to agree because I wouldn't have previously.

Didn't I say all of this in my post? I'm not sure how you think I understand this, but I did say there really is no difference between external and internal. I don't believe God is external to us, in the sense that God does not exist within us. How our minds project or envision God, is part of this. It's basically being self-aware to the level you realize the separate self is an illusion. God without is God within.

If you think I still see God as external to us, and has nothing to do with our own minds, then can you try to put into words how you think it is I believe?

 

[Nakosis]

Didn't I say all of this in my post? I'm not sure how you think I understand this, but I did say there really is no difference between external and internal. I don't believe God is external to us, in the sense that God does not exist within us. How our minds project or envision God, is part of this. It's basically being self-aware to the level you realize the separate self is an illusion. God without is God within.

If you think I still see God as external to us, and has nothing to do with our own minds, then can you try to put into words how you think it is I believe?

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post.

 

[PruePhillip]

or

3- the universe simply exists and was not created

A skeptic asks a believer, "So who created God"
and the believer says, "God is eternal."
The skeptic replies, "That's not a scientific answer."
The believer asks, "So who created the universe"?
"Ah, that's easy. The universe has been here forever."
replied the rather unconvincing skeptic.

 

[Trailblazer]

But no, the universe did not create itself when it didn't exist.

But with all due respect, the existence of the universe is not proof that God exists.
Nobody can ever prove that God exists, because God's existence can never be established as a fact.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[Polymath257]

A skeptic asks a believer, "So who created God"
and the believer says, "God is eternal."
The skeptic replies, "That's not a scientific answer."
The believer asks, "So who created the universe"?
"Ah, that's easy. The universe has been here forever."
replied the rather unconvincing skeptic.

I didn't say that the universe has been here forever. That is unknown. What I said is that it was not created (or caused). That is because causality only makes sense *inside* the universe.

And you are correct, that would be a poor argument against the existence of a God. A much better one is that the God hypothesis isn't required to explain anything.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I have still yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any proposed god being actually exists.

Because I'm religious. Religion is defined as belief in God without aprehension. I dont have to prove that to you and I can still be certain

 

[PruePhillip]

I didn't say that the universe has been here forever. That is unknown. What I said is that it was not created (or caused). That is because causality only makes sense *inside* the universe.

And you are correct, that would be a poor argument against the existence of a God. A much better one is that the God hypothesis isn't required to explain anything.

So what's outside the universe? Who created causality?

 

[PruePhillip]

But with all due respect, the existence of the universe is not proof that God exists.
Nobody can ever prove that God exists, because God's existence can never be established as a fact.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

I am not into "proving" God exists in a scientific sense. If we are talking about the Judaean Christian
God then the whole point of belief is personal faith - gained through personal experience. This is a
private proof, not a corporate proof. The bible says if you spend your whole life just believing on faith
alone then you simply don't get it because there's no personal experience.
Religious people who want to "prove God exists" exist in this no-man's land limbo.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because I'm religious. Religion is defined as belief in God without aprehension. I dont have to prove that to you and I can still be certain

No one asked you to prove anything. I simply stated that I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god exists. You're more than welcome to believe in things without any verifiable evidence. Ignorant people do it all the time.

 

[MonkeyFire]

No one asked you to prove anything. I simply stated that I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god exists. You're more than welcome to believe in things without any verifiable evidence. Ignorant people do it all the time.

I'm not ignorant.

 

[Polymath257]

So what's outside the universe? Who created causality?

1. What sense does it make sense to say that causality is caused? That seems to be self-defeating.

2. Why do you assume a 'who' is involved? That seems *very* unlikely.

3. Whether there is anything outside of the universe depends on exactly how you define 'the universe'. It is common in physics to define it to be the current expansion phase, but then allow for a multiverse. The usual concept would put the physicists' multiverse as the universe.

So, if the universe is 'everything', then there is nothing outside of it. If, instead, the multiverse is 'everything', then the stuff outside the universe is the rest of the multiverse. Causality would then make sense, potentially, in the multiverse. Although that is not guaranteed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I simply stated that I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god exists.

And you will never have any verifiable evidence that God exists, you will only have evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Verifiable evidence:
Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not into "proving" God exists in a scientific sense. If we are talking about the Judaean Christian
God then the whole point of belief is personal faith - gained through personal experience. This is a
private proof, not a corporate proof. The bible says if you spend your whole life just believing on faith
alone then you simply don't get it because there's no personal experience.
Religious people who want to "prove God exists" exist in this no-man's land limbo.

I agree that proof is private and not corporate, but I do not agree that proof must be gained through personal experience.
Proof might also be gained through evidence of God's existence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm not ignorant.

And I didn't call you ignorant. I simply stated that ignorant people believe in things without evidence all of the time.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And you will never have any verifiable evidence that God exists, you will only have evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Verifiable evidence:
Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Exactly... if evidence isn't authenticated as true, then I find it to be evidence not worthy of consideration.

 

[Polymath257]

And you will never have any verifiable evidence that God exists, you will only have evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Verifiable evidence:
Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Hmmm...I think both definitions are a bit naive.

Science rarely proves things to be true. Instead, it tends to prove alternatives are false. It can verify some things directly from observation, but those things tend to be very limited in scope. Instead, it can say that a general idea is not contradicted by the observations.

But, science also requires its ideas to be, at least potentially, testable.

On the other hand, I consider evidence to be something that changes the probability that a theory is true. If the evidence increases the probability, it is evidence for the theory, otherwise it is evidence against.

But this means that to be evidence it cannot be neutral on alternatives. In other words, it has to be able to test those alternatives to some degree. Simple consistency with an idea is NOT evidence.

So, the real question is what probability to be true do you require before saying you have a belief.

For me, I like at least a 4 standard deviation signal before I will say I believe something. Below that, I'll say that I find it likely, but I won't say I believe it.

 

[MonkeyFire]

And I didn't call you ignorant. I simply stated that ignorant people believe in things without evidence all of the time.

Yes, they use religion to lie and its awfully frustrating.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly... if evidence isn't authenticated as true, then I find it to be evidence not worthy of consideration.

The evidence for Baha'u'lah can be authenticated as true, but that is as close as we can come to authenticating evidence for God.