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]

Questions for debate: 1) Do gods exist? 2) Can you prove they exist and 3) do they even have to exist?

1) Likely not.
2) No. It's hard to prove something which likely does not exist.
3) No.

Do Lords exist? Can you prove Lords exist?

What was you definition of 'Lords' again? I suppose you don't mean the rank of aristocracy in Europe.

[Data]

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

1) Is this the crux, or a crux, as to why you believe?

It has nothing to do with it, even having been an atheist half my life I don't see how it would have anything to do with my belief.

2) Does a supernatural creator exist?

Yes. I believe it does.

3) Assuming the answer is "yes" in answer 2), can you demonstrate it?

Can I demonstrate it? Sure, but that doesn't mean anything. You can't demonstrate one doesn't exist and that doesn't mean anything to me.

4) How might one prove a negative? (i,e,) -- Something doesn't exist, like a supernatural creator?

To prove something, a fact or belief simply means to demonstrate evidence for or against something as true or not. Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted. Evidence, proof, and truth mean virtually nothing. It's all faith. In science, there is no concept of proof, but rather a process of hypothesis testing that advances us closer to the truth. To me, a believer, the supernatural creator is theoretical much like anything to a scientist is evidence based and theoretical.

And to the part of your response underlined --> It's likely impossible to find positive evidence for something not existing. In order to find evidence, there must be something there to find. What exactly is there to find?

Well, then you have no evidence there isn't a supernatural creator and you rightly state a personal opinion that it isn't likely. Knowing this from the start from 30 years of experience debating with atheists, my real issue is the theological rather than Biblical source of the atheist/agnostic (I just use the terms believers and unbelievers for simplicity) evidence you examine to come to your conclusion. The problem with that is that for the believer/unbeliever the conclusion is ideological fixation rather than logical. From a logical perspective I've long ago come to the conclusion that it's irrelevant because it's a sociopolitical frustration.

To me these discussions should be evidence based, but to me what they are is comparable to a married couple or lifelong friends arguing about something that isn't really what the argument is about. They get into a heated argument about something silly which is really about something else. So, first I have to make them realize that - (looks at watch. 30 years) - then try and get to what the argument is really about, not in the hope of converting the unbeliever, not by choosing sides, but to promote understanding and tolerance for the real issue.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

Other definitions of gods are irrelevant here. Because religions only deal in the kind of invisible beings floating about influencing life and our existence. Other definitions simply do not matter unless you give some reasons why they are relevant.

Belief is based on trusting what we are told. Science is based on what can be shown credible on evidence; it is worth believing or having trust as you say. Faith (faith in the teachings of religion) on the other hand does not have scientifically validated backup but Faith (s I use the term anyway) is belief and trust without good reason and even in defiance if the evidence. Your dismissal of science and what it has explained and validated, compared to religious claims that have not made their case, just shows what a flawed method of reasoning you are presenting here.

That explanations for things that were once unexplainable were done with proposing mythological, supernatural and magical entities is surely evident with volcanoes, lighting, thunderstorms and even illness. To say it is an assumption is wickedly bad apologetics.

This persistent science - denial, when they help themselves to the products of science that give then a superb life compared to what it was in history (in dentistry to give just one example) and trust the products of science to work every day, while dismissing them as though they were worth nothing if it doesn't support unsupported beliefs in the supernatural (or in your case something else, flying saucer pilots with advance technology perhaps?) is one of the most shortsighted and flawed mindsets of the theists. I call it the Venomfang fallacy as a video debunking that poster's apologetics video shows up the flawed thinking as well as anything.

I'll see whether I can link it/.

Got it first time. what a memory



It's staggeringly arrogant of this fellow to have the sauce to claim this faithbased mythological thinking as reasoning, philosophy and critical thinking when it is doing the opposite of all those things (appeals to faith, rhetoric rather than philosophy and appeals to the unknown and the gap for god instead of critical thinking). Now, you may say 'I'm not a creationist', that you aren't talking about supernatural types of gods. That doesn't matter; what matters is that you were committing the same types of errors of reasoning in your dismissal of of science.

He is clearly delusional. Very well known Creationist who has struggled with mental health - publicly. Yet, he speaks for so many Theists, and I dare say, is the spirit animal of most Christians here.

[POI]

To me these discussions should be evidence based

Great. What 'evidence' suggests a (supernatural creator)? What counts as 'evidence'?

[Data]

Questions for debate: 1) Do gods exist? 2) Can you prove they exist and 3) do they even have to exist?

1) Likely not.
2) No. It's hard to prove something which likely does not exist.
3) No.

1) Do Lords exist? 2) Can you prove Lords exist?

Same answers.

1) Likely not.
2) No. It's hard to prove something which likely does not exist.

The reason you can't prove it means virtually (almost completely) nothing. All you need to do is establish a possible alternative that isn't reliant on theory. What I'm saying is that there isn't any certainty so claims, evidence, truth even, are equal. In the dark ages you were an idiot if you didn't believe in the Bible and astrology. That was only true in the sense that you had to be educated (indoctrinated) and subsequently you could read and do math. Today if you don't "believe" in science (which is regarded as a contradiction in terms anyway, but probably isn't because knowledge is belief) you are an idiot, but in reality, it's no truer of science today than it was of theology then.

A god is anything or anyone venerated.
A lord is someone who has authority, usually, but not necessarily granted by another. Jehovah is God, Jesus is Lord, but Jehovah is also Lord and Jesus is also a god.
Hell is the common grave.
The soul is the life, blood, life experiences of any breathing creature.

[Data]

To me these discussions should be evidence based

Great. What 'evidence' suggests a (supernatural creator)? What counts as 'evidence'?

Creation.

[Data]

He is clearly delusional. Very well known Creationist who has struggled with mental health - publicly. Yet, he speaks for so many Theists, and I dare say, is the spirit animal of most Christians here.

I don't know how it works here, usually that sort of comment is acceptable, and that's what I'm used to and I approve of it. But here it isn't supposed to be. I very rarely report that sort of thing because it's just human nature, but you're already on probation. The other atheists may not report you but some other theist or a mod could see it. If you want PM me your insults and personal BS, don't get banned for it. Okay? I know it's hard - HEY! - I have the same feelings, but I'm trying to put those aside.

[Data]

What was you definition of 'Lords' again? I suppose you don't mean the rank of aristocracy in Europe.

Of course, I do. Are they not lords? Landlord? What is that? If I don't believe in the Lord or lords* what does that mean? Literally. Not ideologically.

* Similar to atheism being defines as a not believing in God or gods.

[POI]

Questions for debate: 1) Do gods exist? 2) Can you prove they exist and 3) do they even have to exist?

1) Likely not.
2) No. It's hard to prove something which likely does not exist.
3) No.

1) Do Lords exist? 2) Can you prove Lords exist?

Same answers.

1) Likely not.
2) No. It's hard to prove something which likely does not exist.

The reason you can't prove it means virtually (almost completely) nothing. All you need to do is establish a possible alternative that isn't reliant on theory. What I'm saying is that there isn't any certainty so claims, evidence, truth even, are equal. In the dark ages you were an idiot if you didn't believe in the Bible and astrology. That was only true in the sense that you had to be educated (indoctrinated) and subsequently you could read and do math. Today if you don't "believe" in science (which is regarded as a contradiction in terms anyway, but probably isn't because knowledge is belief) you are an idiot, but in reality, it's no truer of science today than it was of theology then.

A god is anything or anyone venerated.
A lord is someone who has authority, usually, but not necessarily granted by another. Jehovah is God, Jesus is Lord, but Jehovah is also Lord and Jesus is also a god.
Hell is the common grave.
The soul is the life, blood, life experiences of any breathing creature.

This is 'debating Christianity'. The intent of debate, in this forum, is to debate Christianity. Hence, to banter over what people consider 'lord or Lord, outside the claims to the Christian God, need not apply in this arena.

[POI]

To me these discussions should be evidence based

Great. What 'evidence' suggests a (supernatural creator)? What counts as 'evidence'?

Creation.

Might need to get a little more clarification here... When you say 'creation', what exactly do <you> mean? In the context of this debate forum, I would assume it relates to something newly created. Meaning, creation ex nihilo, and not ex materia. Can we agree here?