Does God exist?

[egg]

If you use philosophy, math or anything to define it other than a silent experience you are laying the groundwork for a religion--a set of guidances on how others should understand it.

I see what you're saying, and you're probably right, but even describing an emotion evoked by a silent experience could provoke certain people to start a religion.

"She met God and said she felt like a spring field after a long winter."
If people believe you, they will spend their entire lives trying to capture this feeling to approach God. Then someone will come up with a set of rules and guidelines to attain this feeling, and thus, God.

[gunter]

The title of this thread was: does God exist.

Well, as I see it, Good and Evil are derivative of the essential human condition. It has no necessary connection with any god. In the most basic human terms 'evil' is a matter of causing harm whereas 'good' is a function of altruism. Why is is necessary to attribute these principles to a god? Is god harmful and loving by turns? In the Hebraic and Christian concepts god is precisely that- punishing and yet forgiving. But to attribute those disparate moods to god only defers to the biblical presupposition that god is a man writ large: image and likeness. But to suppose that is to also beg the question of who created who. Do we create god in our image or does god create man in his? That distinction is less important that the assumption of identity.

[ryguy]

I just want to say, I think this is one of RU's best threads yet. I can't believe some of the insights and depth coming out of these posts. I don't really care what our individual religious (or non-religious) beliefs are - this thread is the perfect example of how I've always envisioned a mature, provocative and useful discussion about this topic should be handled.

I just want to thank everyone for that...the maturity/intelligence level of this discussion is something that is very rare to find online these days - so I'm really pleased to see it.

-Ry

[Chorlton]

Look, we have Chocolate
ergo
There has to be some sort of God.

[Rintendo]

The title of this thread was: does God exist.

Well, as I see it, Good and Evil are derivative of the essential human condition. It has no necessary connection with any god. In the most basic human terms 'evil' is a matter of causing harm whereas 'good' is a function of altruism. Why is is necessary to attribute these principles to a god? Is god harmful and loving by turns? In the Hebraic and Christian concepts god is precisely that- punishing and yet forgiving. But to attribute those disparate moods to god only defers to the biblical presupposition that god is a man writ large: image and likeness. But to suppose that is to also beg the question of who created who. Do we create god in our image or does god create man in his? That distinction is less important that the assumption of identity.

They are derivative of the human condition insofar as our naming conventions. How you might define "good" is different than how another person might describe it even if, for the sake of argument, whe call it a function of altruism. Christian Missionaries to the native populations have very good intentions--they believe there is an afterlife predicated upon the acceptance of Christ as Savior, therefore to impress this upon people for their own good is, well, "good". It is altruistic--they are giving up their time to help. Is it really "good"? If they are right, then "yes". If they are wrong about this acceptance of Christ then its less "good".

I have always argued that we created God in our image. In fact, by attempting to define god/God/G-D at all using philosophy, systems engineering, religious references...WORDS...we are doing just that. If we stop and feel and allow ourselves to internally "know" what G-D is then we are at least being honest enough and humble enough in our search for a being that we believe quite possibly either created the entire universe or is the entire universe.

[egg]

The title of this thread was: does God exist.

Well, as I see it, Good and Evil are derivative of the essential human condition. It has no necessary connection with any god. In the most basic human terms 'evil' is a matter of causing harm whereas 'good' is a function of altruism. Why is is necessary to attribute these principles to a god? Is god harmful and loving by turns? In the Hebraic and Christian concepts god is precisely that- punishing and yet forgiving. But to attribute those disparate moods to god only defers to the biblical presupposition that god is a man writ large: image and likeness. But to suppose that is to also beg the question of who created who. Do we create god in our image or does god create man in his? That distinction is less important that the assumption of identity.

I'm in agreement. So, from what I can see at the moment, that leaves us with God being the original creative force, predating all other creative forces, from which everything else has sprung. Perhaps, the only truly creative force.

[Chorlton]

I'm with Darwin.

[egg]

They are derivative of the human condition insofar as our naming conventions. How you might define "good" is different than how another person might describe it even if, for the sake of argument, whe call it a function of altruism. Christian Missionaries to the native populations have very good intentions--they believe there is an afterlife predicated upon the acceptance of Christ as Savior, therefore to impress this upon people for their own good is, well, "good". It is altruistic--they are giving up their time to help. Is it really "good"? If they are right, then "yes". If they are wrong about this acceptance of Christ then its less "good".

Exactly. Seems as if we're all in agreement.

I have always argued that we created God in our image. In fact, by attempting to define god/God/G-D at all using philosophy, systems engineering, religious references...WORDS...we are doing just that.

And, again.

If we stop and feel and allow ourselves to internally "know" what G-D is then we are at least being honest enough and humble enough in our search for a being that we believe quite possibly either created the entire universe or is the entire universe.

If that is the case then our feelings on the subject should never be uttered as they will automatically be tarnished/changed by the mere use of words and, thus, God will be lost.

[egg]

I'm with Darwin.

Well, if you're with science (so, am I. At least with its process) you're still at a loss for what was at the beginning.

[gunter]

that leaves us with God being the original creative force, predating all other creative forces, from which everything else has sprung. Perhaps, the only truly creative force.

If that's how you define it then it is a priori so! God is always simply a matter of definition. The Hebrews understood this concept and for that reason forbade even the pronouncement of the name 'YHVH.' By defining god you diminish the idea of god. God is not 'love' or 'redemption'- god simply is.

[egg]

that leaves us with God being the original creative force, predating all other creative forces, from which everything else has sprung. Perhaps, the only truly creative force.

If that's how you define it then it is a priori so! God is always simply a matter of definition. The Hebrews understood this concept and for that reason forbade even the pronouncement of the name 'YHVH.' By defining god you diminish the idea of god. God is not 'love' or 'redemption'- god simply is.

Good point. See my last post in response to Rintendo. The last words I wrote (in regards of a silent feeling/emotion) in response say exactly that.

[gunter]

Yes. I see that. We're in essential agreement. It all boils down to- we don't know nuttin bout no steenking gods. Isn't that where this enquiry always leads?

[egg]

Yes. I see that. We're in essential agreement. It all boils down to- we don't know nuttin bout no steenking gods. Isn't that where this enquiry always leads?

Unfortunately. But, the need seems to arise and re-arise in everyone.
It leads me to believe that either God (if there is one) has no ego as he does not want to be found or has the biggest ego anywhere as he wants us (all of us) to constantly debate God subject matter.

[Chorlton]

I'm with Darwin.

Well, if you're with science (so, am I. At least with its process) you're still at a loss for what was at the beginning.

But isnt everyone. ?

[Rintendo]

I'm with Darwin.

Well, if you're with science (so, am I. At least with its process) you're still at a loss for what was at the beginning.

But isnt everyone. ?

Not the people who are convinced. They're convinced.

I'm convinced.

And here we go again....