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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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'?

There's a lot of confusion and I'd think it was wind -up other than the amount of effort put in.

Surely the question here is to show that things work without a supernatural input. That's a telling reversal of burden of proof. We can make a machine that works and no supernatural input needed. Burden of proof is on someone who thinks there is, to show it.

"No, you need to prov there is no god behind it" That s snot how the logic of burden of proof works.

Car engines are an analogy of the world and indeed, universe we know. No god needed, so far. Burden of proof is on those who claim it is.

Ok, cosmic origins, and I have never denied that that is their best case. But the right answer is 'Don't know' not 'God - until 100% proven it isn't'

That is not how logic and evidence works and those who reject that are not using logic and evidence correctly.

It is a purple dye mark that theists - thinkers always reverse the burden of proof and argue from a faith - claim.

That reminds me. Disbelief, materialism, science is a faith. So the theist apologists claim. Semantics aside, it is a justified faith. Justified by evidence and logic.

Similarly, those who claim that atheism is a religion; I don't think it is (it does not have dogma nor gods) but even if it was, it would be a logical and evidence based one. Even if we did fight terrible and destructive wars over what we should call ourselves.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

1.
You said are not bothered by the suffering of babies but here you seem bothered by my mere pointing
that death anxiety is an explanation why concepts of god exists calling me xenophobic, intolerant, bigoted.
That's rich.

2.
Nonsense.
That's the real reason gods concept exist if one is a realist and not ignorant.
Everybody knows this deep down.

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'.

Irrelevant snarky comment.
My statement stands true still though.

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.

I was pointing to a trend, pathern were a specie of mammals: Homo Sapiens Sapiens was repeteadly inventing gods:supernatural power beings. They appeared from the imaginary world and they vanished to the same word.

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.

Irrelevant snarky comment.
My statement stands true still though.

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.

Yes Homo Sapiens Sapiens will most likely go extinct like most species(99.9%) of living things on this planet.
I predict we will fare far less then less intelligent species like Crocodylians(85 million years), Velvet worm(500 million years), Horseshoe crab(450 million years).

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.

Your proving my point. The metamorphosis happened.
Yahweh was formerly the god of the Canaanite guild of metallurgists.

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

Forever, basically the same estimation you give religion above.

Yes. Unless we became immortal through biological, technological inovation. Transference of conciosness, clonning, mechanical bodies.
If we survive and become something akin to a type 4 civilization mabe some immortal member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in few billions years will metaphorposis into gods themeselves. No longer a need for gods. Anxiety of death will have vanished millions of years ago.

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.

Anotther irrelevant comment.
We are talking of hypothetical incredible powerful beings, creators of universes sir.

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?

And another irrelevant snarky comment.
My statement stands true still though.

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?

And another irrelevant snarky comment.
My statement stands true still though.

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.

Another irrelevant comment.
I never said Ghandi, Yoda, Buddha were perfect beings. Gandhi and Goku were rather stupid in some remarks.
Gandhi refused initially to take western medicine because of religious reasons.
The guy left his good life as a laywer and lead a minimalist life with just the necessities to survive, fasted 18 days for his people, got arrested by the British empire and ultimately was killed for his deeds. He taught a non-violent way to live one live.
Gandhi was by far a more benevolent being then imaginary Yahweh which is more akin to Hitler, Kim Il-sung, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatin, Frieza.
The point was that both real and imaginary being that embody wisdom, benevolence and goodness would not require worship, praise, adoration and gratuitous submission from anybody.
Only Totalitarian, evil, malevolent, egotistical beings require adoration, worship, praise and gratuitous submission from their followers.

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.

Dear sir irrelevant, moronic snarky comments will not help you at all.
Saying Azathoth is an idiot is like saying going North of the North Pole on a sphere.
Azathoth is described as mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness. He is nor intelligent nor stupid. Nor evil or benevolent. Such concepts no longer apply.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

What is "supernatural"? In order for us to prove that, you'd have to define this thing you've invented as an option - and prove it exists.


edit: Please note that this challenge has never been met. Instead, Supernaturalists will deflect, hem, haw, insult, distract, obfuscate, stall or just run away when confronted with this very basic question: What is this thing they are talking about? They won't give a positive definition - they won't tell us what it is - they will try to tell us what it isn't, with no evidence that they are accurate in this description.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Q: Why are you ignoring the divine call of Cthulhu?!

Stop prophesying false beliefs.

Born out of pure chaos and apparent nothingness, his call reverberates across the multiverse.
Anyone who is willing to meditate intensively will be able to tune on the golden frequency
, will hear his holy call and be changed forever.

All hail mighty Cthulhu, the true and only God.

[1213]

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

Can you give an example of how to prove existence? For example, how would you prove to me that you exist and are real?

Personally? If I were your God, in order to prove my existence to you I would insist on coming to your home and staying as a guest - a really annoying guest - until you got rid of me. And my dangerously overweight and audibly flatulent black Labrador retriever named boozer.

And that would prove to me that you are not my God.

I don't think people can really prove anything. But, I don't think it is necessary. The point is not to be sure that God is real. The point is to become righteous. For that knowing surely God is real, is not needed.

[1213]

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

Can you give an example of how to prove existence? For example, how would you prove to me that you exist and are real?

There's a problem there.Why should the arbiter be what you are willing to accept as proof? Or to put it another way, why should we accept what you are willing to accept as proof as being meaningful? You should first prove to us that your parameters for credibility of your beliefs and opinions are themselves worthy of crediting.

Isn't that same problem in the opening post? If you ask can God's existence be proven, who decides what is accepted?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Can you give an example of how to prove existence? For example, how would you prove to me that you exist and are real?

There's a problem there.Why should the arbiter be what you are willing to accept as proof? Or to put it another way, why should we accept what you are willing to accept as proof as being meaningful? You should first prove to us that your parameters for credibility of your beliefs and opinions are themselves worthy of crediting.

Isn't that same problem in the opening post? If you ask can God's existence be proven, who decides what is accepted?

That's rather the problem you made for yourself with the post before that. If God turned up as a paying guest it wouldn't be God - in your opinion. What makes your opinion of what God would or would not do the final arbiter of judgment? Isn't it just your opinion?

And if nothing - neither my opinion nor yours - can be relied upon tovalidate anything about a god (name your own) then that god -claim becomes essentially unfalsifiable.

There's this old 'If God himself came down...' apologetic that it seems they are still trying to make work even though it was doomed from the start as it was first an Islamic apologetic. The Christians would reject Allah as it wasn't the God they believed in and Muslims would reject God because it was the Jesusgod they believed in.

Atheists however would be skeptical. After some questions and evidence, they might well give this being the benefit of doubt. But the Believers, if it didn't fit their beliefs, would never accept it. Do you see the problem with taking ones' own faithbased beliefs as the Truth against which everything else is measured and accepted or dismissed, no matter how good the evidence?

[boatsnguitars]

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated.

I disagree. I think one can honor something that falls short of what would be defined as a god.

I believe veneration is less than worship. Honor is less than veneration. Fondness is less than honor. Like is less than fondness.

Shall we arbitrarily decide that "in essence, a god is anything you like"?

If so, why not?

[Data]

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated.

I disagree. I think one can honor something that falls short of what would be defined as a god.

Of course. A god is something that is more important than anything else. Paul used the word in an ironic sense for bellies, i.e. food, when some who were attending gatherings of Christians just for the food. Money, drugs, sex, food, sports, music, art, poetry, knitting - I knew a woman who had to be reminded that God should be more important than knitting. Knitting had become her God. There isn't necessarily wrong with those things, until they become most important.

I believe veneration is less than worship. Honor is less than veneration. Fondness is less than honor. Like is less than fondness.

How do people worship God? Not a gotcha question.

Shall we arbitrarily decide that "in essence, a god is anything you like"?

No.

If so, why not?

Because that isn't what a god is, as I've explained above. And also, just because one believes, or, as in the case of the demons, knows, that God exists, doesn't mean they worship God.

[Data]

And that would prove to me that you are not my God.

I would hope so.

I don't think people can really prove anything.

Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement, you and I and the atheists are proving God here, all the time. Proof is not certain infallible knowledge, though people, especially atheists who argue against God in the name of "science" like to think. That is replacing faith with overconfidence for the sake of ideology.

But, I don't think it is necessary.

Theists tend to think it is, ironically, for the same reason as atheists as given above. Replacing faith with overconfidence for the sake of ideology.

The point is not to be sure that God is real. The point is to become righteous. For that knowing surely God is real, is not needed.

I think I understand what you mean. Adam's sin was a sin of pride, a challenge to God's sovereignty. Adam decided that he should decide for himself what was good and what was bad. God wanted Adam to be able to do that eventually, but Adam did that before he was mature enough to know, like the angels, how to do that. To essentially know that as sovereign Lord, Jehovah, who had created him, knew better what was good and bad for him. (Genesis 3:22)

It really is similar to parenting.

So, knowing God is real is the way to righteousness. In sin we are like children who have the potential to understand this for real.