Do you believe in God?

[Peter]

On the subject of knowing what God is, one of the problems with this debate is that there are almost as many definitions of God as there are believers. This confirms my view that in practice the term "God" is a receptacle for the varying hopes, fears and values of the individual believer.

For practical purposes I take it that there is a traditional definition which can be accepted as standard: God is an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely merciful conscious personal intelligence who designed and created the universe as a deliberate act. A number of contradictions arise directly from this definition, not least the Problem of Evil, so it is fairly easy to disprove the traditional definition as a valid concept. But it is really up to believers to prove His existence rather than for sceptics to disprove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary justifications.

For those who hold the concept of God as a focus of values, this is fair enough if it helps them organise their value systems, but they should make it clear that they are talking about a symbol rather than about a really existing objective entity.

Peter

[Justin]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

I've already discovered what God is:

NONEXISTENT

If that is what you have discovered, then you are correct.

As Peter has pointed out, God comes in a variety of shapes and colors and can fit almost any situation or perception. Although definitions vary just as individual perceptions do, God or the idea of God is something on a more personal level to each of us, as each of us will vary in our beliefs.

You see, even in something like Christianity, (not picking) as a whole, they have a general definition of God. To each Christian though, God is different for each one of them. Whilst they may all believe in God, God isn't the same for any one of them. Same goes for everyone else. Kind of like DNA, we each have a unique DNA and we as individual humans are unique unto ourselves. There are no two humans that are exactly alike, just as there are no two humans and literally worship or believe in the exact same God.

Man, on an individual level forms God within his or her own perception and each is different, just as each of us is different. God is an image we create with the help of external influences like Church, Ministers, TV, Internet and all those things outside of ourselves have contributed to the development and character of God. Each of us sees the world differently and uniquely so... So then, each of us sees God differently and uniquely so.

So, if one man says yes he believes in God or no he doesn't, I think it's important to know that each belief, no matter or big or small, is uniquely defined by the image or perception of each of us.

If God is non-existent to Krazy above or to others, then they are actually correct. If you do believe in God, you are also correct. We're not going to be able to prove otherwise because each man has his own God the God of each man differs more in some than in others.

Either way, we know this for sure. Man will create and manifest his thinking or beliefs based on his or her individual perception. One day you may say there is no God and the next day you see a miracle of nature and then decide there is. Once accepted into the mind as a truth, we begin to formulate what God is. This new God that man has recognized is going to be as real as his own imaginings.

The difficulty arises when one man says his God is the right one and another man says no, this is the right God and your perception of what God is, is not correct. All the while, not realizing that God isn't the same for anyone, just as our fingerprints aren't the same as our brothers and sisters.

From what I see in the world, Mankind can either build or destroy, uplift or grind down. Man creates and manifest his thinking in the form of action. So whatever one believes in, they are right because mankind can change the world according to his thoughts which manifest themselves into an illusion of reality.

The God of today is money and power. More people idolize money and power than anything else. It rules the roost. Is money a God? Well, yes for many it is, and it's real.. Are they correct in that assertion, well their actions will speak for themselves and if they've made money their God, then yes, that's a God. Is nature a God? Yes it is, for those who believe it is. What about your boss at work, is he or she a God? Most certainly, if we've made it that way. If we look at something and idolize it, no matter what it is, we as mankind can make a God out of it, even it's all an illusion. So we're all right! There's simply not a wrong answer because unto each, their own.

You can have a church with 3000 members and while they have a general definition of God that they've chosen to accept on the whole, there are actually 3000 Gods because each man will have accepted and interpreted things on an individual level. Hmm... interesting concept. 3000 members of one church, 3000 variations of God?... some of you will understand this.

The God in each of our own and individual minds is as real as the apple hanging from the tree in our backyard, if we believe it so. You will never understand my God just as I will never understand your God. They are uniquely different and unto their own, yet very similar in the ways in which we accept them.

One thing we do know though is that Love and Balance create more Love and Balance. Hate and animosity create more hate and animosity. The thoughts of man create more manifestations of man. Like seeks out like, just as the cells of our body join in communities of like kinds, so does mankind. That's the part of nature that cannot be controlled by the man of this hour.

So in my humble opinion, it doesn't matter what version of God one has chosen or not chosen. Good things happen to those give good thoughts and actions toward their fellow man. Our idea of God is just something to separate us from the Oneness of ourselves and our fellow man and when we try to force or impose Our God onto someone else, then that's where trouble begins and that's where mankind (IMHO) falls short of the glory of God within all creation.

We will create our own destiny... PERIOD! No matter which God we choose to believe in or which version we want to twist into our own acceptance, we will ultimately create that which we think and believe and we're all correct.

Interesting reading from the Bible.

John 10:34 (New International Version)

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

John 10:34 (King James Version)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Psalm 82:6 (New International Version)

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

Psalm 82:6 (King James Version)

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

[Didymos Thomas]

Justin, I agree with the bulk of your post. If more people were open to the idea that God is a personal notion, a concept that can represent an individuals ideas of morality and reality, or represent the nature of existence, and not some static concept invented 4,000 years ago by illiterate nomads, fewer people would be killed over the debate. But I still have some problems with the claim "God does not exist"

To say "God does not exist", as I pointed out, requires that the person making the claim know what God is. As there are a multitude of understandings of God, even this initial claim by atheists is of little meaning.

If God is non-existent to Krazy above or to others, then they are actually correct. If you do believe in God, you are also correct. We're not going to be able to prove otherwise because each man has his own God the God of each man differs more in some than in others.

The problem is that God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, in the same respect. You are right - we cannot prove, as a matter of fact, that God, whatever we consider this to be, does or does not exist. Because we cannot know either way, to say "God does not exist" is nonfalsifiable. Similarly to say "God does exist" is nonfalsifiable. Neither statement can be shown to be accurate.

The strong atheist claim is "God does not exist", which seems to be something that cannot be supported. The only support this strong claim can find is the lack of a proof of God's existence. But the lack of evidence about His existence does not prove his nonexistence.
This is why many atheists have adopted the weaker claim 'there is no evidence that God exists'. To the weak atheist, I can give no argument to force them from their stance - if no evidence of God can be presented, there is no reason to believe in God.

So, here I am, someone who believes in God, yet I'm arguning that the soft atheist position is correct?

Sort of, yes. Without any evidence of God, how could I even begin to argue with the soft atheist? I can't. All I can do is say 'if you have some time, give this a try' and maybe if they listen they will begin to see God. Justin, you said yourself, God is personal. No one else can provide evidence of God to me, none that could be convincing. Similarly, no one can prove God to you, or anyone else. We can only come to God by our own investigation (some call this a personal relationship with God, or being born again, ect, most traditions seem to have some idea of the individual rediscovering for himself "God").

The strong atheist claim (God does not exist), just like the strong theist claim (god does exist), is something that cannot be demonstrated. The middle ground is God may or may not exist.
No one can be expect to believe in something until they have reason to believe. The weak atheist claim, then, seems entirely valid. But so does the weak theist claim - God does exist, but I cannot prove this to you; you may find God if you look, though.

People need to be careful of their extremes. Demanding that God cannot exist, or demanding that God must exist - these extreme claims are more claims of passion, I think. When the passionate atheist comes down from his throne, and the passionate theist comes down from his, then we can have open, productive discourse with one another, and both the theist and the atheist will benefit by one another's mutual interest in the subject of God.

As for your Bible quotes, Justin - they are certainly interesting. Jesus taught us to pray "our Father". I'm quickly finding myself off topic, but I will say that when people see God as something apart from themselves, and themselves as something apart from God, they've missed the point. But this one off claimis an entirely different subject.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The strong atheist claim is "God does not exist", which seems to be something that cannot be supported. The only support this strong claim can find is the lack of a proof of God's existence. But the lack of evidence about His existence does not prove his nonexistence.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Didymos Thomas. The trouble with the standard to be applied to knowledge-claims that you quote above is that it would open us up to believing a wide range of myths and superstitions on the basis that lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. As I said in one of the early postings in this thread, I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden; all I can do is point out that there is no evidence of fairies at the bottom of my garden and therefore no reason to believe in their existence.

Surely the test to be applied to empirical statements is that they are not believed in the absence of evidence. Otherwise we would be open to accepting a wide range of improbable beliefs.

Peter

[NeitherExtreme]

Interesting topic so far...

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

People need to be careful of their extremes. Demanding that God cannot exist, or demanding that God must exist - these extreme claims are more claims of passion, I think. When the passionate atheist comes down from his throne, and the passionate theist comes down from his, then we can have open, productive discourse with one another, and both the theist and the atheist will benefit by one another's mutual interest in the subject of God.

Just a few thoughts of mine...

I completely agree about the irrationality of dogmatism on either side of this debate. "Must" and "can't", in any sort of final way, are simply beyond the human mind to prove.

But, personally, I believe that our human experience should lead us to believe that, though we can not have absolute knowledge, we certainly apear to live in an absolute reality and to have the ability to gain partial knowledge of it. I would define this absolute reality as that which exists regardless of my perception of it, and I believe in it because I (and everyone else) experiences this and lives as though it were true. This idea, like everything else, can't be proven. But I have yet to hear a good reason to doubt it, and have a whole lifetime of experience to support it.

Given this idea of reality, I would then say that God must either exist or not exist, regardless of our perception of the issue. I would then add that I for one have interest not in my own perceptions but in reality and in moving my perceptions as close to it as I can, using all the capabilities that I have.

In this way I believe that everyone chooses their own perception of God, as everyone chooses their perceptioin of history or anything else. But that does not change the facts about God (as my perception of history does not change what actually happened). So his existance or nonexistance, and if He exists His nature and influence, etc. are not simply what we choose them to be, but a part of reality, while our beliefs on the subject are our own to choose. Personally, I am not really interested in creating "God" through my phillosophy, reason, beliefs, or desires. I am only interested in discovering to the best of my ability what is true, including God- but only if He is real.

[Didymos Thomas]

The trouble with the standard to be applied to knowledge-claims that you quote above is that it would open us up to believing a wide range of myths and superstitions on the basis that lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. As I said in one of the early postings in this thread, I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden; all I can do is point out that there is no evidence of fairies at the bottom of my garden and therefore no reason to believe in their existence.

Well, lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. I've never met a man named John from India, but this does not mean there is no man named John from India. As for your fairies, there is no reason for you to believe that they are at the bottom of your garden, so you should not be expected to believe there are faries. Similarly with God, I cannot give you any evidence of his existence, so I cannot expect you to believe God does exist.

My point is that the strong atheist claim is too extreme, and that the weaker claim is more reasonable. Similarly, I'm arguing that the strong theist claim is also too extreme, and that the weaker theist claim is more reasonable. I'm also suggesting that when theists and atheists abandon their extreme claims, that dialogue between theists and atheists will be more productive.

But, personally, I believe that our human experience should lead us to believe that, though we can not have absolute knowledge, we certainly apear to live in an absolute reality and to have the ability to gain partial knowledge of it. I would define this absolute reality as that which exists regardless of my perception of it, and I believe in it because I (and everyone else) experiences this and lives as though it were true. This idea, like everything else, can't be proven. But I have yet to hear a good reason to doubt it, and have a whole lifetime of experience to support it.

My response is a bit off topic, but none the less: So, what is this reality you speak of? What does exist regardless of your perception?

Given this idea of reality, I would then say that God must either exist or not exist, regardless of our perception of the issue. I would then add that I for one have interest not in my own perceptions but in reality and in moving my perceptions as close to it as I can, using all the capabilities that I have.

If we define God, then I would agree, whatever we have defined as God must either exist or not. Though I am interested to know what you think constitutes reality beyond our perception.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

My response is a bit off topic, but none the less: So, what is this reality you speak of? What does exist regardless of your perception?

Good question. With a simple (but hopefully not simplistic) answer. I assume it is the vast majority of what I experience as reality. I mean, if someone hits me in the back of a head with a hammer, I didn't percieve it before hand, but I certainly experienced it anyway. A lifetime full of "experiences discovered" in spite of previous or contradicting expectation leads me to think that reality actually exists, and that it is only my perception that is not absolute.

Absolute reality is not provable, but I haven't found a good argument against it's existence yet. And I'm bound to live as though reality exists, so why not believe it?

[hari]

Hi,
Before I answer to the question “Do you believe in God”, I would like to explain few things with some simple questions. What /Who/Where is God? How to recognize Him? The answers are very simple, being a Hindu I believe in “Every thing is God”. God has not necessarily created anything but god is everything. So in our everyday life we do come across God. But we tend to neglect it because of our innocence. God cannot be seen as a separate thing, so it is impractical to try to see him. Our naked eyes cannot see it but we can feel the God through our Heart.

Regards,
Hari Haran B

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. I've never met a man named John from India, but this does not mean there is no man named John from India.

This is a bit wide of the mark, Didymos Thomas. What we know about the distribution of forenames in the English speaking world leads us to believe that there are many thousands of men called John in India. So there are masses of evidence for this belief. A closer analogy would be to say that you've never met a man from the Moon called John. Does the absence of evidence mean that there is a man in the Moon called John?

Witches, fairies, fabulous beasts and wondrous deeds were the common currency of belief throughout most of human history. Only in the last couple of centuries has the criterion been reasonably firmly established that an empirical proposition requires positive evidence before it merits belief. This has coincided, not surprisingly, with a move from myth-based to rational thinking.

Peter

[Didymos Thomas]

Perhaps I've missed the point - does any of what you've said establish that "lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence" is not accurate?