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]

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.

TRANSPONDER said that science says that things work without supernatural input. Supernatural is some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. How can science tell give evidence things work without supernatural input? Ideology is the answer.

[POI]

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?
2) Does a supernatural creator exist?
3) Assuming the answer is "yes" in answer 2), can you demonstrate it?
4) How might one prove a negative? (i,e,) -- Something doesn't exist, like a supernatural creator?

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

TRANSPONDER said that science says that things work without supernatural input. Supernatural is some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. How can science tell give evidence things work without supernatural input? Ideology is the answer.

No, and the usual irrationality and illogic of theism. The way it works is (if this wasn't what I said already) the supernatural lurks in the unknowns, if anything beyond the material and physics actually exists. The logic is to treat it as though it wasn't real until someone shows that it is.

The unreason is obvious when it is clear that car engines work without supernatural input. Volcanoes are explained without supernatural input. Biology can be explained without supernatural input. If there are unknowns (consciousness, for instance) Supernatural is NOT the default theory without someone showing it is there. Skepical - materialist denial or disbelief is not what has the burden of proof - it is those who claim a supernatural element bear the burden of proof. It is logically and evidentially invalid to point to the unknowns and suppose the supernatural thing is there. For all we know, the unknown works on the same known physics and mechanics as the world we know. Give us a good reason to suppose there is something more.

Look, we know how it works, The believer starts with the Faith that some supernatural thing is real and stays real until 100% disproven.

Logically that is not how it works. Those beliefs without any real evidence is not a valid claim until validated. Believers cannot understand who has to do the proving,

[POI]

In order to disprove a claim, we first need to know 1) exactly what the claim is, and also 2) have evidence for the claim.

In this case, seems Data is using the following rationale:

1) A supernatural creator exists.
2) How do we know this? Well, 'Scientists can't explain this/that." But is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

[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.

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.

"Because that isn't what God is."

But you defined God as "anything or anyone who is venerated." Do you mean Tom Brady is a god? And Yahweh is a god?

And, if you simply defined it as that, why can't I define a god as something people like? Ice cream is a god?

Do demons venerate Allah? (Sub-question: how does something that doesn't exist venerate something that doesn't exist?)

You see where I'm going with this: I think you'd defined "god" as a convient talking point without much concern for general usage, and only to fit your general theological view. That's fine - but we can all do it. So, I have to wonder why I'm not allowed to do it?

To me, a god is a literary character that personifies some aspect of humanity or the human condition. For example, Ares, God of War - who I don't venerate - yet, is, indeed a God.

[POI]

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.

TRANSPONDER said that science says that things work without supernatural input. Supernatural is some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. How can science tell give evidence things work without supernatural input? Ideology is the answer.

No, and the usual irrationality and illogic of theism. The way it works is (if this wasn't what I said already) the supernatural lurks in the unknowns, if anything beyond the material and physics actually exists. The logic is to treat it as though it wasn't real until someone shows that it is.

The unreason is obvious when it is clear that car engines work without supernatural input. Volcanoes are explained without supernatural input. Biology can be explained without supernatural input. If there are unknowns (consciousness, for instance) Supernatural is NOT the default theory without someone showing it is there. Skepical - materialist denial or disbelief is not what has the burden of proof - it is those who claim a supernatural element bear the burden of proof. It is logically and evidentially invalid to point to the unknowns and suppose the supernatural thing is there. For all we know, the unknown works on the same known physics and mechanics as the world we know. Give us a good reason to suppose there is something more.

Look, we know how it works, The believer starts with the Faith that some supernatural thing is real and stays real until 100% disproven.

Logically that is not how it works. Those beliefs without any real evidence is not a valid claim until validated. Believers cannot understand who has to do the proving,

For both sake in brevity, and also for kicks and giggles, let's try and fast-track Data's argument; as well as attempt to 'steelman' his/her argument.

"A 'supernatural creator' of some sort was necessary to bring matter into existence. Matter had a beginning, and matter cannot create matter, only manipulate existing matter. Natural law, and all things there-after, was initiated by 'supernatural forces.' Something is required outside nature to create new nature."

Further, let's not yet get bogged down with specific terms, such as "matter". It could be interchangeable with 'energy/nature/existence/other'. I guess the goal is to get to "truth", rather than to banter semantics

Is this a good starting point for Data?

Questions to ponder, if acceptable:

1) Is it possible matter always was? If so, then there exists no need for a supernatural creator.
2) Can matter create new matter? If so, then a supernatural creator is again unnecessary.
3) Can matter begin to exist without a supernatural agency? If 'abiogenesis' is a thing, then theists are again in trouble.

[Data]

"Because that isn't what God is."

Correct.

But you defined God as "anything or anyone who is venerated." Do you mean Tom Brady is a god? And Yahweh is a god?

Correct.

And, if you simply defined it as that, why can't I define a god as something people like? Ice cream is a god?

You can.

Do demons venerate Allah? (Sub-question: how does something that doesn't exist venerate something that doesn't exist?)

No, and they don't. Unless, I suppose, it was fiction, mythology. Something of that nature. In that sense.

You see where I'm going with this: I think you'd defined "god" as a convient talking point without much concern for general usage, and only to fit your general theological view. That's fine - but we can all do it. So, I have to wonder why I'm not allowed to do it?

You are. Generally speaking, when the specific god in question is in the supreme sense, like in the Bible, in occidental culture, etc. God with the upper-case G is used. Paul said there are many gods and many lords but to us there is one God and one Lord. It's like king. Charles is a king, he isn't my King, he is King of the Brits.

To me, a god is a literary character that personifies some aspect of humanity or the human condition. For example, Ares, God of War - who I don't venerate - yet, is, indeed a God.

Yeah. At least someone is listening.

[boatsnguitars]

"Because that isn't what God is."

Correct.

But you defined God as "anything or anyone who is venerated." Do you mean Tom Brady is a god? And Yahweh is a god?

Correct.

And, if you simply defined it as that, why can't I define a god as something people like? Ice cream is a god?

You can.

Do demons venerate Allah? (Sub-question: how does something that doesn't exist venerate something that doesn't exist?)

No, and they don't. Unless, I suppose, it was fiction, mythology. Something of that nature. In that sense.

You see where I'm going with this: I think you'd defined "god" as a convient talking point without much concern for general usage, and only to fit your general theological view. That's fine - but we can all do it. So, I have to wonder why I'm not allowed to do it?

You are. Generally speaking, when the specific god in question is in the supreme sense, like in the Bible, in occidental culture, etc. God with the upper-case G is used. Paul said there are many gods and many lords but to us there is one God and one Lord. It's like king. Charles is a king, he isn't my King, he is King of the Brits.

To me, a god is a literary character that personifies some aspect of humanity or the human condition. For example, Ares, God of War - who I don't venerate - yet, is, indeed a God.

Yeah. At least someone is listening.

So, God is whatever. OK. Got it. God exists or doesn't exist. Is meaningless except to the person claiming the definition... etc.

So, how do you make a coherent argument for the existence of a God? Keep saying, "Yes, God does exist! In your mind!"

If Theology ever seemed useless before, it has sunk to new lows.

And, sadly, I think this is the truth. It certainly makes Theists to be the most pitiful people in the world.

[Data]

So, God is whatever. OK. Got it. God exists or doesn't exist. Is meaningless except to the person claiming the definition... etc.

No. I thought you had this. Uh . . . that it was, er, how you say? Track?

So, how do you make a coherent argument for the existence of a God? Keep saying, "Yes, God does exist! In your mind!"

Did, uh, did you read the definition in the OP. The Oxford Dictionary definition? God can be a dog turd if you want it. Do you know what one of the most common and old gods that I can think of is? The cross. Do you know what a cross is? It's a phallic symbol. A representation of the penis. The male genetailia . . . generaliacs . . . genertalic . . . junk. Have you done any research on the subject of your incessant angst?

If Theology ever seemed useless before, it has sunk to new lows.

Oh, you haven't even scratched the surface. You see how stupid it is to make the statement that "there is no gods?!"

And, sadly, I think this is the truth. It certainly makes Theists to be the most pitiful people in the world.

Listen.

[boatsnguitars]

So, God is whatever. OK. Got it. God exists or doesn't exist. Is meaningless except to the person claiming the definition... etc.

No. I thought you had this. Uh . . . that it was, er, how you say? Track?

So, how do you make a coherent argument for the existence of a God? Keep saying, "Yes, God does exist! In your mind!"

Did, uh, did you read the definition in the OP. The Oxford Dictionary definition? God can be a dog turd if you want it. Do you know what one of the most common and old gods that I can think of is? The cross. Do you know what a cross is? It's a phallic symbol. A representation of the penis. The male genetailia . . . generaliacs . . . genertalic . . . junk. Have you done any research on the subject of your incessant angst?

If Theology ever seemed useless before, it has sunk to new lows.

Oh, you haven't even scratched the surface. You see how stupid it is to make the statement that "there is no gods?!"

And, sadly, I think this is the truth. It certainly makes Theists to be the most pitiful people in the world.

Listen.

I'm out. "There is no gods?!" is grammatically wrong, or as you say, stupid.