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]

Which is what? Just a succinct definition, please, not a quote that everyone has one. Define it.

Hate. Love. Preference. These are concepts everyone has. A god is something that is venerated. The creator reported in the Biblical text, Jehovah, is claiming sovereignty. The most deserving of our veneration. There are also others of a lesser divinity. Jesus. To Aaron and Pharaoh, God appointed Moses as God. How would you fit the root of the word being might into that application. To ancient Israel God said the judges were gods. To the nations, the gentiles, there were gods deemed valuable by the people, but who God deemed as valueless. He told the Israelites not to make those into gods. Because they would be negatively influenced by them. And they were. Sacrificing children to Baal, etc. In Rome Zeus was ultimate God, but rulers were themselves called Zeus. In Shintoism gods were created in order to instruct the youth on tradition, nationalism, by conscription of the royal family of the Nihongi and Kojiki. Amaterasu etc. were gods and goddesses who were never meant to be taken as literally existing. They weren't presented as such. On the alluvial plains of Ur (Babylon area) where Abraham came from, they worshipped Astarte, the consort of Baal. So-called queen of heaven. She was a fertility goddess. Her symbols the egg, cross (phallic symbol) and rabbit. So, urns have been discovered in that area from Abraham's time with paintings of these symbols on them and the charred remains of children inside. Fertility worship. A cross is a fertility symbol. An idol. Idols are gods. Jesus disputed with Satan regarding the disposal of Moses' body due to concerns about it becoming an idol. A god. The angels took the body of Jesus away for the same reason. A talisman. Totem pole. The pole Daniel refused to bow down to. The flag the Jehovah's Witness refuse to pledge allegiance to. Do you understand what a god is? Jehovah is my God. Jesus was a god. He's dead now, you know. They killed him. Jehovah isn't your God, but he is a god or God. King Charles. King. A king.

For example, everyone has Gamma-aminobutyric acid.

4-Aminobutyric acid (GABA), a major inhibitory neurotransmitter of mammalian central nervous system, is found in a wide range of organisms, from prokaryotes to vertebrates. GABA is widely distributed in nonneural tissue including peripheral nervous and endocrine systems. GABA acts on GABAA and GABAB receptors. GABAA receptors are ligand-gated chloride channels modulated by a variety of drugs. GABAB receptors are essentially presynaptic, usually coupled to potassium or calcium channels, and they function via a GTP binding protein. In neural and nonneural tissues, GABA is metabolized by three enzymes—glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), which produces GABA from glutamic acid, and the catabolic enzymes GABA-transaminase (GABA-T) and succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase (SSADH). Production of succinic acid by SSADH allows entry of the GABA carbon skeleton into the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Alternate sources of GABA include putrescine, spermine, spermidine and ornithine, which produce GABA via deamination and decarboxylation reactions, while L-glutamine is an additional source of glutamic acid via deamination. GAD from mammalian brain occurs in two molecular forms, GAD65 and GAD67 (referring to subunit relative molecular weight (Mr) in kilodaltons). These different forms of GAD are the product of different genes, differing in nucleotide sequence, immunoreactivity and subcellular localization. The presence and characteristics of GAD have been investigated in a wide variety of nonneural tissues including liver, kidney, pancreas, testis, ova, oviduct, adrenal, sympathetic ganglia, gastrointestinal tract and circulating erythrocytes. In some tissues, one form (GAD65 or GAD67) predominates. GABA-T has been located in most of the same tissues, primarily through histochemical and/or immunochemical methods; GABA-T is also present in a variety of circulating cells, including platelets and lymphocytes. SSADH, the final enzyme GABA catabolism, has been detected in some of the tissues in which GAD and GABA-T have been identified, although the presence of this enzyme has not been demonstrated in mammalian pancreas, ova, oviduct, testis or sympathetic ganglia.

Now, that is a very specific definition. It is very clear - and if it isn't let me know and we can break it down further, and explore what it interacts with and what it doesn't. If you want, you can directly study it, too. Don't take anyone's word for it that it exists.

Nope. For the purpose of debate here Gamma-aminobutyric acid are the velvet covered plastic Jesus bobbleheads people put on the dashboard of their cars. No need for confusion. That would be a sort of frustrating response, huh? Nope. You're making stuff up. Apologetics. No need for book learnin' here. Woo, I tell ya'. Nothing but woo. Speculative.

And that is a definition for something small - not nearly as impressive or important as a God or god. It's long, but easy to understand. It's not ambiguous, it's not full of woo or speculative terms. It clearly defines it.

Why can't I get this for God? I thought there were Theologians working on this for the last 10,000 years? Why haven't they been able to define what they are studying?

They have. Oxford, Wikipedia. I've studied gods for over 30 years and I've only ever seen any confusion with "Christians" and by default, their critics in a silly class struggle. If there is confusion it's only because people see the thing that is deified as the exclusive meaning rather than an example of the same principle. To you and I, Zeus, whether supernatural, mythological or historical mortal isn't important. Zeus was important to the Romans. Jehovah became God to the Israelites, just as he appointed Moses God to Aaron and Pharoah. It isn't complicated. It's confused. Not really confusing.

Skeptics have the nonsensical supposition that the primitive people, who lived directly in nature, the natural world, had to invent gods to help them understand the unexplainable. It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept. That they who lived in it, in nature, and who created, along with their gods, the civilizations in which we live, were more confused about them than 21st century man who thinks they know better because they can "Google it."

[Data]

Well, I'm not exchanging with others, I'm exchanging with you.

If I provide you with an answer, you accuse me of "preaching." Do you know what that word means? It means to publicly make known. Do you know what the protestation of preaching means? To suppress knowledge. You know why? Because some people don't want certain knowledge to be made public.

That's fine. You can listen to me but I can't do it for you. If you think debate is, in any way, significant to me, you are wrong. Unless I learn from it by losing. Of course, I read through my posts and can't believe how many mistakes - and not just grammatical mistakes - I make. That isn't the point. I want to get you, that is the royal you, as Labowski would say, thinking.

What does 'create' mean? Do you hypothesize it relates to 'ex nihilo'?

I wouldn't. What I would hypothesize is what it says, and it doesn't. Specifically. As far as I can tell, though I've never thought it important enough to ponder. I'm not going to judge the merits of the text by something as temporal as current science. Is Pluto a planet? Were dinosaurs more chicken than lizard? How big was the big bang? Really big, or nothing? Are eggs bad for you or good for you? What is the viscosity of ketchup? Will it rain today? Science doesn't tell me things, it asks things. Science isn't a belief system, it's a method of investigation. I'm a curious person and all for investigation, not so much belief paradigms, historically speaking.

I do. If not, does it instead mean a re-purposing of existing 'stuff'? If so, that is not really 'creating', but instead re-purposing/reconstituting existing "material/stuff".

We know 'stuff' exists.

The question remains, "what, if anything, 'created' the existence of this 'stuff'?" Maybe this is a nonsensical question? Maybe like asking what is north of the North pole or what is colder than absolute zero. But again, maybe not? Dunno until you define what you mean?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning [1] God [2] created the [3] heavens and earth.

[1] The beginning from an earthly perspective. The spirit heavens and spirit beings had already existed, probably for a long time.
[2] Michael, master worker, through Jehovah's holy spirit, without which would be impossible for him.
[3] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens (universe, including sun, moon, stars, planets) and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

That's what you get out of Genesis 1:1. You don't get ex nihilo or ex Materia ex machina. Remember, Occam's razor. Don't add unnecessary components. You want to figure out how? Great. But don't put words in God's mouth.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #91]

'Skeptics have the nonsensical supposition that the primitive people, who lived directly in nature, the natural world, had to invent gods to help them understand the unexplainable. It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept. That they who lived in it, in nature, and who created, along with their gods, the civilizations in which we live, were more confused about them than 21st century man who thinks they know better because they can "Google it."

I've read this a couple of times to try to work out what it even means. Apart from dumping on Skeptics, because they don't think the way you do, just what is it you are trying to make a case for? Explain? Hint, we don't need to hear that 'gods'can be used to refer to other things that we don't think of when discussing religion. I explained that and you didn't seem to get it.

[POI]

[Replying to Data in post #92]

Okay. I've read what you wrote. Let's try a differing direction.

Has "Jehovah" always existed? (yes or no)?
Has the 'Heavens' always existed (yes or no)?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #91]

'Skeptics have the nonsensical supposition that the primitive people, who lived directly in nature, the natural world, had to invent gods to help them understand the unexplainable. It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept. That they who lived in it, in nature, and who created, along with their gods, the civilizations in which we live, were more confused about them than 21st century man who thinks they know better because they can "Google it."

I've read this a couple of times to try to work out what it even means. Apart from dumping on Skeptics, because they don't think the way you do, just what is it you are trying to make a case for? Explain? Hint, we don't need to hear that 'gods'can be used to refer to other things that we don't think of when discussing religion. I explained that and you didn't seem to get it.

You only see it as dumping on skeptics. I don't dump on people for not thinking the way I do. Do you? What it means is simple. The tendency is to underestimate the primitive and overestimate the modern.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #92]

Okay. I've read what you wrote. Let's try a differing direction.

Has "Jehovah" always existed? (yes or no)?
Has the 'Heavens' always existed (yes or no)?

Yes and no. Both spirit and physical heavens have not always existed. Keep it simple like this and you will be much better off, IMO, at least with me.

[POI]

[Replying to Data in post #92]

Okay. I've read what you wrote. Let's try a differing direction.

Has "Jehovah" always existed? (yes or no)?
Has the 'Heavens' always existed (yes or no)?

Yes and no. Both spirit and physical heavens have not always existed. Keep it simple like this and you will be much better off, IMO, at least with me.

Where exactly did Jehovah "dwell/exist/reside" before He necessarily had to first created it?

[Data]

Where exactly did Jehovah "dwell/exist/reside" before He necessarily had to first created it?

Don't know. Except for that he didn't have to create it to exist, obviously. He did have to create it to reside there, of course. You can't reside somewhere without the place itself existing. Speculatively, because I don't recall any reason to assume otherwise. That's just off the top of my head, though. My memory isn't what it used to be but I would say that's pretty accurate.

[POI]

Where exactly did Jehovah "dwell/exist/reside" before He necessarily had to first created it?

Don't know. Except for that he didn't have to create it to exist, obviously. He did have to create it to reside there, of course. You can't reside somewhere without the place itself existing. Speculatively, because I don't recall any reason to assume otherwise. That's just off the top of my head, though. My memory isn't what it used to be but I would say that's pretty accurate.

My point being Jehovah "creates." Or, "bring something into existence." Before this, 'nothing.' Meaning, before it exists, it does not exist. Instead, "nothing". You directed me to start here --> "In the beginning God created Heavens and earth". Before the beginning, aside from God, there was logically "nothing" else. God occupied nothing? How exactly does that work? If you instead say God always resided "somewhere", then "somewhere" besides Jehovah always existed as well, which then means there exists "something" Jehovah did not "create".

[Data]

My point being Jehovah "creates." Or, "bring something into existence." Before this, 'nothing.' Meaning, before it exists, it does not exist. Instead, "nothing". You directed me to start here --> "In the beginning God created Heavens and earth". Before the beginning, aside from God, there was logically "nothing" else. God occupied nothing? How exactly does that work? If you instead say God always resided "somewhere", then "somewhere" besides Jehovah always existed as well, which then means there exists "something" Jehovah did not "create".

Jehovah existed before anything else. He always existed. That much we can support scripturally. There was no place where he existed. Now, the Bible is talking to people who have no knowledge, experience or study of that concept. If you rightly conclude that spirit means invisible (to us) active force producing visible results, wind, compelled mental inclination, spirit beings, it just means invisible to us, capable of producing visible results. So, then, theologically, could "nothing" to us be something to them? Possibly. But it isn't terribly relevant because what we would be talking about is matter. The material. You say matter or energy can't be created. Okay. Maybe. Maybe we don't know it can be created, maybe, as I said, energy and matter are interchangeable. Energy could be described as spirt, like wind, breath, the spark of life God gave Adam. Does that mean energy has always been, as a part of God, and created in his image he gave us the breath (air) and spark (energy) of life after creating matter from energy? It's speculative, conjectural, theoretical. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but we don't have scriptural confirmation. We were created from the earth. What? Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. We are matter. I'm not a molecular biologist. I'm a Bible student. I leave the science to science.