Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[Data]

Yep, that tracks.

I'm not familiar with the terminology. Tracks? What does that mean?

Religious belief is useless.

Okay. But how would you define religious? To me, religion is a strict adherence (allegedly, usually in pretense) to a set of principles and repetition. To me, in this sense, everyone is religious. If your statement intends to discount, Buddhism, for example, as useless, that would be subjective, and most likely ideological. Buddhism has proven usefull to me in that it taught me the importance of acknowledging and letting go of suffering. Buddhism, at least originally, was atheistic. Most religions are of cultural, traditional, and social significance, which isn't useless, I would say, even as I'm typically antisocial and dislike culture and tradition a great deal. Without those two aspects of human development we'd be in a much darker place, I suppose, but maybe not. Who knows?

Just believe whatever, then blame the non-believer for their non-belief. What a freakin' useless bunch of garbage.

Believe it or not (pun intended) you have beliefs. Your disbelief is a belief and you're blaming believers that don't share your disbelief? I think so, but I also think that's garbage. Just the lament of an ideologue.

[boatsnguitars]

Yep, that tracks.

I'm not familiar with the terminology. Tracks? What does that mean?

It means it makes sense. It follows.

Religious belief is useless.

Okay. But how would you define religious? To me, religion is a strict adherence (allegedly, usually in pretense) to a set of principles and repetition. To me, in this sense, everyone is religious. If your statement intends to discount, Buddhism, for example, as useless, that would be subjective, and most likely ideological. Buddhism has proven usefull to me in that it taught me the importance of acknowledging and letting go of suffering. Buddhism, at least originally, was atheistic. Most religions are of cultural, traditional, and social significance, which isn't useless, I would say, even as I'm typically antisocial and dislike culture and tradition a great deal. Without those two aspects of human development we'd be in a much darker place, I suppose, but maybe not. Who knows?

If our only problem is semantics I'm not worried. Religion is often associated with the supernatural - which is the real problem with religion.
If we want to parse and drill down to finer points we can, but in general, I think it's pretty clear what people mean by "Religion." There are atheist Religions, and they may have some of the problems other religions have, but IMO, if we tackle the Abrahamic religions first - maybe I won't have such a problem with religion. But right now Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the main religions in the world that are causing the main problems. Hinduism and Buddhism are surely the cause of some bad thinking, too, but let's start with the worst offenders.

Just believe whatever, then blame the non-believer for their non-belief. What a freakin' useless bunch of garbage.

Believe it or not (pun intended) you have beliefs. Your disbelief is a belief and you're blaming believers that don't share your disbelief? I think so, but I also think that's garbage. Just the lament of an ideologue.

Yeah, typical conflating of issues. At some point you've got to understand there is a difference between someone believing that Physics is a pretty good tool to view the universe as opposed to worshiping a 4,000 tale of talking snakes and believing in supernatural realms where people live forever.
It's a shame religious people can't understand the difference.

Where do you think people get the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old? Religion. Let's start with that, then you can complain that other people have beliefs, too - as if they are treated equally... lame.

[Data]

Yeah, typical conflating of issues. At some point you've got to understand there is a difference between someone believing that Physics is a pretty good tool to view the universe as opposed to worshiping a 4,000 tale of talking snakes and believing in supernatural realms where people live forever.
It's a shame religious people can't understand the difference.

Uh-huh.

Where do you think people get the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old? Religion. Let's start with that, then you can complain that other people have beliefs, too - as if they are treated equally... lame.

Here's the thing, though, and I'm glad you brought that up because it's one of many, many examples.

What if, and I'm just throwing this out there, what if it were true that the people that think the world is only 6,000 years old were wrong? And, now hear me out, and the people that think they think that is because the Bible says it, are also wrong? And you told both of them, you showed them, that the Bible says nothing remotely like that. That in fact the Bible doesn't say anything about how old the heavens and earth are and you can't find, not only where it does, but also can't find where it implies it and in fact, it does imply it would be much older? What then?

I can tell you because it's true and I can prove it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't say that. So, both are wrong and you can show them but it doesn't matter. Not one little bit.

The problem isn't with religion, it's with ideology. Now the guy who coined the term ideology called it the "science of ideas" and I can see that's certainly true, but to me it means people - all people including myself - are idiots because their ideas don't matter 'cause they're crap. Their ideas are crap. The problem is that once an idea becomes a part of you, once you've accepted it, you'll fight to keep it like it was a stupid stamp or Star Wars collectable. Or land, car, money, etc.

[Data]

1.
Existence of concepts like god/gods is just a way for people to deal with death anxiety and a very pitiful, miserable existence. “Opium of the masses”.

A generalized and, I don't know? xenophobic or maybe just intolerant or bigoted opinion.

All previous concepts of god/gods have disappeared from the consciousness of the masses:

Yes, obviously, you must dig deep into your memories to even recall it. C'mon, feller'.

The Norden European people no longer believe in the Vikings gods: Odin, Loki, Thor, Freya.
The Greeks no longer believe in the Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Athena.
The Egyptians no longer believe in Ra, Horus, Anubis.
The Romanians no longer believe in the Dacians/Geto-Dacians god: Zalmoxis.
The Middle East people no longer believe in Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, Mithra.
And so on.

So, you think it not necessary to believe in gods for them to be gods? I would certainly agree with that.

Evolution of religions is akin to Evolution of Species of Living things and Evolution of Languages.

Made up? Stupid? Inherently including a proclivity among pockets of people to be contemplated and expanded upon in abject ignorance? Yeah, but that's everything.

Religions and gods will appear and then die off. Go extinct. Others will appear. Some will morph into other things. Small change over time.

Like humanity or Dodo birds.

Long timespans will yield incredibly different results.
In few thousand years Allah and Yahweh-Jesus will probably vanish from the consciousness of the masses leaving place for other mythical gods that also will give place to other mythical gods. And so on add infinitum. Or maybe they will morph into unrecognizable things.

They've already morphed into unrecognizable things, at least in the perspective of people, but "Yahweh" has been around since recorded history, so how can you make such a statement. No evidence of it, obviously.

C: For as long as humanity exists and death anxiety exists religion will probably exist.

Forever, basically the same estimation you give religion above.

2.
To answer your question is it possible a god like being exists. Most definitely such being is indifferent to our affairs given the current arrangements: great suffering, death, misery + great confusion and diversity on what god is and what it wants.

C: A deistic concept seems the most plausible, possible.

What's the difference between, let's say, supernatural gods like Zeus and Jehovah, vs natural gods like Kim Jong-Un and Moses or Eric Clapton? I mean, aside from the supernatural which pisses "science" off because they can't take credit for it. Like they try to take credit for mechanical flight, the internet or personal computer.

3.
Worshiping, praise, adoration, gratuitous submission has evil, malevolent connotations and it’s related to an inflated ego.

Hmmm. Of the non-existent entity or the zealous nay sayer?

Totalitarian, evil, malevolent characters such as Hitler, Ceausescu, Kim Il-sung, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatin, Frieza required adoration, worship, praise and gratuitous submission from their followers.

Who also created them?

If a very powerful, very knowledgeable, very benevolent and very wise being exist it will be akin to the likes of Yoda, Goku, Gandhi, Buddha. It would not require worship, praise, adoration and gratuitous submission from anybody.

Ghandi, for example, wouldn't allow his wife to take Western medicine and she died, but when Ghandi himself got sick he allowed Western Medicine. Yoda looks like a gangrenous foot, and Buddha's teachings weren't committed to writing until 500-1000 years after his death. But I'm just saying. I've no idea who Goku is.

It is possible a very powerful being exists and is indifferent in respects to the well being and affairs of humans akin to the likes of Azeroth.

Azathoth is a mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness that happens to be extremely powerful. He simply is. Existing but not much else. With no real ability to think in either the abstract sense or the simple way non-human animals way. In his random, unintelligibly, mindless way Azathoth created or dreamed the universe as we know it into existence. He did this unintentionally, unaware of the occurrence. He will be equally oblivious, unaware when he destroys it. There's no point behind his actions, it's just happenstance when he does something.

“Azathoth is a deity in the Cthulhu Mythos. He is the ruler of the Outer Gods,[1] and may be seen as a symbol for primordial chaos.
[O]utside the ordered universe [is] that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azathoth

C: The concept of worship, praise, adoration, gratuitous submission is meaningless for

- If it is required it comes from an untrusty malevolent, egotistic being. No point in giving it.
- For a mindless force like Azathoth its unnecessary and irrelevant.
- For a minded very powerful, very knowledgeable, very benevolent being its unnecessary as it is not required conform the ontology of such being.

I think it's far more likely to be Patrick Starfish from Sponge Bob Square Pants. If you're going to go with an idiot best pick one that doesn't accidentally construct and demolish universes.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it is best to avoid confusion.

Hear, hear.

One can use the term 'god' to refer to anything of importance or veneration, but they have identifiers beyond that. To call your baseball team, or favourite car you 'god' is asking for the confusion of equivocation. A Baseball team is a sporting team, a car is an object of transportation. A god is a spiritual being with intelligence and, supposedly, powers.

But that isn't true. A baseball team is a sporting team, a car is an object of transportation and a god is anything, including, possibly, either one of those things. While some gods are spiritual beings with intelligence and, supposedly powers, most gods aren't. In the OP I gave the definition of God, but it isn't very accurate. Just the common use. Though it gives examples of gods, it doesn't tell you what it means to be a god. The only requirement to being a god is to be worshipped or venerated. Which just means great respect and reverence.

Those are the ones we talk about here and the other definitions are best left out of the Forum as they belong in the sporting and petrolhead forums.

Well, I, Uh . . . what?!

No, no, no. Do any gods exist? No, says atheism. Then, astonishingly, atheism tries to limit the definition of gods, dismissing about, at a guess, 90%. A god doesn't have to be spirit, it doesn't have to be intelligent, it doesn't have to have powers. It doesn't have to be real, and it doesn't have to exist, so, while the specific god in question in forums like this may be of primary concern, that doesn't mean the other 99% don't exist.

Ok so the question seems twofold.

Do gods exist?

Do they have to exist?

The second really is, generally, no.

That isn't true unless you dismiss most of the gods. You're limiting the definition on the basis of one type of gods. Supernatural. I think that's ideological. Let's rephrase the question. Do lords exist and does the supernatural exist?

The world works as it does without gods and without needing to be created by gods.

The trouble with that statement is that you can't prove it because it's never been done. It doesn't matter if the gods really exist or not, the world has always been predicated upon mythological presuppositions. It's never been tried to work the world without gods.

Once nobody knew the other explanations, so 'gods' were the easy hypothesis.

I don't believe that. It's an assumption always made by unbelievers but it isn't very sophisticated, well-constructed or supported by reason or logic. It's only the assumption that individuals who don't believe in gods don't need them, and that's easy to say when your entire world is founded upon them. Not so easy to demonstrate when pretty much everything around you is predicated upon them. Look around. The days of the week, month, the planets, medicine, automobiles, candy. Everything is named after mythological gods.

They are no longer needed.

I don't think they were ever needed as such.

Life and indeed consciousness does not require gods, or the explanations are good enough not to really need gods. I know the Believers point to 'a god is possible' but that does not make a go -to theory, but a Faithbased one.

The definition of faith is trust. All theories are faith based. The Latin word credit means to believe. Words like credential, credible, and credit. Think of your explanations without those, or life in general.

True, Cosmic origins is a problem, and the best case for a creative being or 'god', though it does not answer which one it might be, or whether there is only one or many.

Again, you're limiting the definition of gods to supernatural.

Again 'don't know' (yet) is the right answer. It is not "God - until science can prove 100% that it happened without a god".

I don't think science has any relevance. Science is wrong more often than not. Whether science could prove 100% God or not God makes no difference to me.

But the faithful think the logic is 'a god (and of course the one they believe in) until the alternative explanation (without a god being necessary) is known. And even then they can deny the evidence.

Everyone can deny the evidence. That's what evidence is for.

Yet again we get the problem of ignoring or dismissing the materialist default. We know on (science) evidence that things work without a supernatural input. The burden of proof thus falls on the believers in anything not so evidenced (and thus tend to be called'supernatural, though if validated described and researched, they would become 'natural') to show reason to credit those things including gods, hypothesised to be some sort of cosmic being, presumed with power or they would be irrelevant and invisible because we don't see them (in fact human imagination thinking what they are required to be to make anything worth believing) and quite a distinct concept from baseball teams and roadsters, despite 'God's being a subset definition that can apply to anything we revere and value.

To follow this up, we get the ascription of denial to the skeptic that the skeptic doesn't have. We deny nothing, because nothing has been presented to deny. Only (and this is the only logical burden we have) unknowns are not evidence for gods or anything else.

[Data]

Yet again we get the problem of ignoring or dismissing the materialist default. We know on (science) evidence that things work without a supernatural input. The burden of proof thus falls on the believers in anything not so evidenced (and thus tend to be called'supernatural, though if validated described and researched, they would become 'natural') to show reason to credit those things including gods, hypothesized to be some sort of cosmic being, presumed with power or they would be irrelevant and invisible because we don't see them (in fact human imagination thinking what they are required to be to make anything worth believing) and quite a distinct concept from baseball teams and roadsters, despite 'God's being a subset definition that can apply to anything we revere and value.

To follow this up, we get the ascription of denial to the skeptic that the skeptic doesn't have. We deny nothing, because nothing has been presented to deny. Only (and this is the only logical burden we have) unknowns are not evidence for gods or anything else.

Okay, well, then, prove things don't work without a supernatural input.

[TRANSPONDER]

1.
Existence of concepts like god/gods is just a way for people to deal with death anxiety and a very pitiful, miserable existence. “Opium of the masses”.

A generalized and, I don't know? xenophobic or maybe just intolerant or bigoted opinion.

All previous concepts of god/gods have disappeared from the consciousness of the masses:

Yes, obviously, you must dig deep into your memories to even recall it. C'mon, feller'.

The Norden European people no longer believe in the Vikings gods: Odin, Loki, Thor, Freya.
The Greeks no longer believe in the Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Athena.
The Egyptians no longer believe in Ra, Horus, Anubis.
The Romanians no longer believe in the Dacians/Geto-Dacians god: Zalmoxis.
The Middle East people no longer believe in Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu, Mithra.
And so on.

So, you think it not necessary to believe in gods for them to be gods? I would certainly agree with that.

Evolution of religions is akin to Evolution of Species of Living things and Evolution of Languages.

Made up? Stupid? Inherently including a proclivity among pockets of people to be contemplated and expanded upon in abject ignorance? Yeah, but that's everything.

Religions and gods will appear and then die off. Go extinct. Others will appear. Some will morph into other things. Small change over time.

Like humanity or Dodo birds.

Long timespans will yield incredibly different results.
In few thousand years Allah and Yahweh-Jesus will probably vanish from the consciousness of the masses leaving place for other mythical gods that also will give place to other mythical gods. And so on add infinitum. Or maybe they will morph into unrecognizable things.

They've already morphed into unrecognizable things, at least in the perspective of people, but "Yahweh" has been around since recorded history, so how can you make such a statement. No evidence of it, obviously.

C: For as long as humanity exists and death anxiety exists religion will probably exist.

Forever, basically the same estimation you give religion above.

2.
To answer your question is it possible a god like being exists. Most definitely such being is indifferent to our affairs given the current arrangements: great suffering, death, misery + great confusion and diversity on what god is and what it wants.

C: A deistic concept seems the most plausible, possible.

What's the difference between, let's say, supernatural gods like Zeus and Jehovah, vs natural gods like Kim Jong-Un and Moses or Eric Clapton? I mean, aside from the supernatural which pisses "science" off because they can't take credit for it. Like they try to take credit for mechanical flight, the internet or personal computer.

3.
Worshiping, praise, adoration, gratuitous submission has evil, malevolent connotations and it’s related to an inflated ego.

Hmmm. Of the non-existent entity or the zealous nay sayer?

Totalitarian, evil, malevolent characters such as Hitler, Ceausescu, Kim Il-sung, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatin, Frieza required adoration, worship, praise and gratuitous submission from their followers.

Who also created them?

If a very powerful, very knowledgeable, very benevolent and very wise being exist it will be akin to the likes of Yoda, Goku, Gandhi, Buddha. It would not require worship, praise, adoration and gratuitous submission from anybody.

Ghandi, for example, wouldn't allow his wife to take Western medicine and she died, but when Ghandi himself got sick he allowed Western Medicine. Yoda looks like a gangrenous foot, and Buddha's teachings weren't committed to writing until 500-1000 years after his death. But I'm just saying. I've no idea who Goku is.

It is possible a very powerful being exists and is indifferent in respects to the well being and affairs of humans akin to the likes of Azeroth.

Azathoth is a mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness that happens to be extremely powerful. He simply is. Existing but not much else. With no real ability to think in either the abstract sense or the simple way non-human animals way. In his random, unintelligibly, mindless way Azathoth created or dreamed the universe as we know it into existence. He did this unintentionally, unaware of the occurrence. He will be equally oblivious, unaware when he destroys it. There's no point behind his actions, it's just happenstance when he does something.

“Azathoth is a deity in the Cthulhu Mythos. He is the ruler of the Outer Gods,[1] and may be seen as a symbol for primordial chaos.
[O]utside the ordered universe [is] that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.[11]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azathoth

C: The concept of worship, praise, adoration, gratuitous submission is meaningless for

- If it is required it comes from an untrusty malevolent, egotistic being. No point in giving it.
- For a mindless force like Azathoth its unnecessary and irrelevant.
- For a minded very powerful, very knowledgeable, very benevolent being its unnecessary as it is not required conform the ontology of such being.

I think it's far more likely to be Patrick Starfish from Sponge Bob Square Pants. If you're going to go with an idiot best pick one that doesn't accidentally construct and demolish universes.

That's a downer. I was going to put my money on Harvey Cthulhu.

[POI]

prove things don't work without a supernatural input.

Can you please elaborate a bit on what exactly you are implying? I feel this statement may be a crux, or the crux, of your current belief about 'God'?

[Data]

That's a downer. I was going to put my money on Harvey Cthulhu.

BLASPHEMER!!!

Who?

Got it. Oh, those space gods guys are a dime a dozen.

[Data]

prove things don't work without a supernatural input.

Can you please elaborate a bit on what exactly you are implying? I feel this statement may be a crux, or the crux, of your current belief about 'God'?

Science minded atheists can't prove there's no supernatural creator so they can't say those specific gods don't exist.