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]

But, you do have a point: if we knew what a god was, we'd all be better off. If only we had a single definition and evidence that that definition applied to something that actually existed. Instead, we get definitions that change with the weather.

I also, like Jesus, said that the judges in Israel, who were men, were gods. The answer to your question is that I and Jesus, and Paul, and Moses, who was also called God (uppercase G) knew that anything could be a god. The Pharisees and the modern-day Christians - and subsequently the skeptic - doesn't know that. The argument of the skeptic in this debate, on this subject, is always that "we're not talking about that kind of god." There is only one kind of god. Like Penn & Teller said in their HBO series BS a few years back. "Everybody's got a gri-gri." Everyone has a God.

That's what causes confusion. There is something I call the Humpty fallacy (Hasn't caught on so I make nothing in Royalies) where Humpty tells Alice "Words mean what I want them to mean". The problem there is, if one invents their own language, they have only themselves to blame if nobody understands them.

In practice, this means we have to agree what we are talking about. If we go on a culinary website and talk about food, we do not expect to discuss hay, on the grounds it is food for horses.

So Gods means something generally agreed. Judges were not gods, but may have been messiahs, if they were anointed. It is no doubt very cleaver to pull semantic stunts like 'anything can be a god' but it does not help the conversation to get anywhere.

The thing is, the purpose of posters here is to engage in conversation. To that end, it is good if we all agree what we are talking about. It is not helpful if someone wants to introduce confusions by using words to mean things that others aren't talking about.

I mentioned messiahs. It is useful to know that a messiah could be any person of old Israel that was anointed - king, High priests. That clarifies the conversation. It is also useful to know what messiah means in the Christian sense. Once the two different meanings are in mind, we know what we are talking about.

But I don't see what helpful purpose there is in pointing to remote and irrelevant definition for 'Gods'. If you can point out how it helps discussion, please do so.

[POI]

I don't care about science and I don't care about claims. It's just a ruse. As I've said many times, I couldn't possibly be interested any less in scientific claims because I'm not a scientist and I'm not discussing science. Nothing against it, I think it's great, but it is far from infallible truth. If science said tomorrow that they can prove the existence of God I wouldn't give it a thought. It would mean virtually nothing to me.

Point 2) pertains directly to the video you sent. If you could care less, then please do not send videos to answer my question(s) which state 'scientists can't explain stuff."

Thus far, your rationale for creationism is that 'science cannot explain this/that".

Again, in order to possibly disprove a claim, we first need to know exactly what a 'supernatural creator' is and also have positive "evidence" for this claim.

[boatsnguitars]

There is only one kind of god.

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

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.

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?

[Data]

I think Jesus was a mortal man, too, though I reckon Paul was actually the inventor and thus the founder of Christianity.

Then, Saul, (gentile name Paul), who persecuted and killed Christians prior to becoming one, invented the belief he had previously persecuted prior to his conversion . . . doesn't fit.

But what has that to do with whether gods, in the sense of incorporeal beings with intelligence, powers and a penchant for nocturnal visits to mortal maidens, can and do exist?

Either a god doesn't have to be an incorporeal being, as you've stated, or Jesus, the alleged "God" of modern-day Christianity, which you are allegedly critical of, wasn't one. If what I'm saying to you doesn't make sense it's because you don't know what a god is and you don't really care what Christians believe because what they believe isn't real in any logical or Biblical sense.

As it turns out their beliefs and your beliefs are from the same place. Empedocles, Aristotle, Anaxagoras and Anaximander were the originators of the scientific theory of evolution as you know it. They were Greek philosophers. Plato and Socrates, though not the originators of the immortal soul and trinity, were the influence of modern-day Judeo-Christian beliefs. Alexander the Great brought it all together in 332 BCE. July. Roughly. Summer, let's say.

Science is knowledge. Jesus told his followers to seek knowledge would bring everlasting life. As it turns out though, knowledge gets in the way. People may say knowledge is important because they like to think they have it, like God, is "on their side" or "No gods exist."

So, here's the thing about atheists, and this may seem unrelated to this subject which you also say is unrelated, but it's the root of militant fundamental atheism. Jackie Chan once had an imaginary conversation with Will Smith's kid Jaden that is very similar to our conversation. It's short and important that you watch this to understand . . . the confusion. Because we're having the same conversation here and now.



Spirituality is like Kung Fu.

Or art.

I like hyperrealism. Like this painting by Richard Estes.



However, Picaso said "Art is a lie that tells the truth." Earlier somewhere here on this forum I was talking about Jesus's illustrations or parables. Fictional stories that aren't true but tell the truth. They put things into a different perspective, comparable to the point you are making. Lazarus and the rich man, for example. Realism. That's the kind of art I really like, because though the technique in photo or hyperrealism is impressive, it just produces a photograph like image. Realism produces an image that, though not an exact photocopy, it produces an emotional or spiritual essence of the subject matter. Like this painting: Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: c 1736.



Or this painting of scientists examining the skull of Piltdown man in 1915 by John Cooke.



Then there is impressionism. Sort of. For this example, a simple child's drawing.



Simple. But effective. So, you can relate to any of these and it's a matter of perspective.

For the fundamentalist militant atheistic perspective, or world view, photorealism. Pragmatic. For the spiritually inclined, realism. It shows you what's behind or underneath the pragmatic. For the religious, the child's drawing. Simple, relatable, unrealistic.

Did I just completely waste your debate time? Now. Jacket off.

[Data]

Point 2) pertains directly to the video you sent. If you could care less, then please do not send videos to answer my question(s) which state 'scientists can't explain stuff."

Thus far, your rationale for creationism is that 'science cannot explain this/that".

Again, in order to possibly disprove a claim, we first need to know exactly what a 'supernatural creator' is and also have positive "evidence" for this claim.

Go do that then. With your science.

[POI]

Point 2) pertains directly to the video you sent. If you could care less, then please do not send videos to answer my question(s) which state 'scientists can't explain stuff."

Thus far, your rationale for creationism is that 'science cannot explain this/that".

Again, in order to possibly disprove a claim, we first need to know exactly what a 'supernatural creator' is and also have positive "evidence" for this claim.

Go do that then. With your science.

How exactly might one "prove things don't work without a supernatural input"? <- In "quotes" is your statement.

[Data]

How exactly might one "prove things don't work without a supernatural input"? <- In "quotes" is your statement.

You don't. You dig around in the dirt to see what they were talking about. Not what the "Christians" make believe they were talking about and discover Socrates and Plato in its stead, but like a scientist. You know. Archaeology. Except you don't have to dig around in the dirt. Just go here.

In the beginning, God, it says, created the heavens and earth. What does that mean? What is God, what is create, what is heavens, what is earth. What is the beginning? I'm serious. What do each of those mean, from the Bible's, not yours or mine or the Pope's perspective? Do a, uh, whatchacallit. Hypothesis.

[Data]

That's what causes confusion. There is something I call the Humpty fallacy (Hasn't caught on so I make nothing in Royalies) where Humpty tells Alice "Words mean what I want them to mean". The problem there is, if one invents their own language, they have only themselves to blame if nobody understands them.

Sorry. You can't patent that. Theoretically. Because it's taken. It's called the atheist fallacy, or just atheism for short. I gave you an Oxford dictionary definition. That is the same as any other definition known to man in any other language. Except atheism. Oxford aren't employed by me, so - better reevaluate the fallacy. Of course, William Chester Minor was, well, insane, even by today's standard, but I digress.

In practice, this means we have to agree what we are talking about. If we go on a culinary website and talk about food, we do not expect to discuss hay, on the grounds it is food for horses.

I'm with you so far, buddy.

So, Gods means something generally agreed. Judges were not gods, but may have been messiahs, if they were anointed.

Okay, let's chop that up, or uh dice it, if you will. The Hebrew word god comes from a word meaning mighty/strong. So, look at all the definition ol' crazy Chester gave ya' and see, does that fit. With ALL definitions. What is strong, or mighty? Some rules of deity, in that capacity; there are different forms of strength. A man may be physically strong, and intellectually weak. The might, in whatever form, is generally going to be greater than the one attributing; the one in worship. Jim Jong-Un may be a fat pansy, but he is god to many. Got it?

Jim. I said Jim. I meant Kim. Obviously.

Pretty simple really. I used the King or king comparison earlier; you may not have seen it. Secondly, a judge is pretty straight forward. They judge. Usually in a court of law, but it could be that old woman who glared menacingly at the guy at the bus stop who was wearing a tutu and mumbling something about the Pythagorean theorem under his whiskey laden breath. Messiah means savior. Like David. Jesus. Uh, what was the other one. . . . Oh! Annointed means rubbed with oil. Uh, well, it was a symbolic ceremonial right not unlike baptism. Public declaration for baptism, approval from God in the case of anointing.

What, uh - what are we talking about? I'm sorry, what's happening?! [you have to realize that I have to keep myself entertained during this 1000th broach into the subject. Most often, silly. Imagine the court jester. Trying to explain a difficult subject to the king, who will have none of it. Why not be silly. At least someone is getting something out of it, no?]

Let's just move on.

It is no doubt very cleaver to pull semantic stunts like 'anything can be a god' but it does not help the conversation to get anywhere.

It's not really clever, actually, it's very simple. I've personally known children and mentally handicapped people that could explain it. They just didn't have their ideological blinders on. Was it MC Hammer who famously said that you can get anyone to believe anything but you can't very easily get them to change their mind once they believe something. Or was it change their pants? So, you mentioned judges not being gods.

[sigh. pearls before piggies]

At Psalm 82:1,6 the Hebrew word elohim [god(s] is used for the judges. Now, the Pharisees, like the modern-day atheists, can't believe Jesus was a god. So, he quoted it. At them. At John 10:34-35. They, like you, mistook the "God concept" as applying only to one. Which is ridiculous really, if you think about the 10 so-called commandments, or "words."

The thing is, the purpose of posters here is to engage in conversation.

Well, then, we'll have to control the words they use. In case they're on to something. Debate what we say they can debate how we say they should debate it based on what we assume. Peer review. If they let us.

To that end, it is good if we all agree what we are talking about.

Especially if we don't know what that is and we have to limit it accordingly. If we're stupid. That is, willfully ignorant.

It is not helpful if someone wants to introduce confusions by using words to mean things that others aren't talking about.

Baby talk!

I mentioned messiahs. It is useful to know that a messiah could be any person of old Israel that was anointed - king, High priests. That clarifies the conversation. It is also useful to know what messiah means in the Christian sense. Once the two different meanings are in mind, we know what we are talking about.

Speaking of anointed, the English word God - English is a Germanic language - predates Christianity and is pagan in origin. Pagan means outside of, like out in the country in a literal sense. Heathen, the same, of the heath. To the pagans it meant libation. To pour. Like anoint. Is that, given your statement about judges, messiahs, gods - ironic? Not really good with irony on a practical level. The parlance of our times.

But I don't see what helpful purpose there is in pointing to remote and irrelevant definition for 'Gods'. If you can point out how it helps discussion, please do so.

Okay. Why not? I'm about to respond to the guitar and boats dude, even though he insulted my taste in music and dared - DARED! to correct me grammatically speaking - we're apparently cool in a general sense. But I have to take a nap first.

I'm not going to edit this monstrosity. Everything's bothering me, to quote Dwight Yokam.

[POI]

How exactly might one "prove things don't work without a supernatural input"? <- In "quotes" is your statement.

You don't. You dig around in the dirt to see what they were talking about. Not what the idiot "Christians" make believe they were talking about and discover Socrates and Plato in its stead, but like a scientist. You know. Archaeology. Except you don't have to dig around in the dirt. Just go here.

In the beginning, God, it says, created the heavens and earth. What does that mean? What is God, what is create, what is heavens, what is earth. What is the beginning? I'm serious. What do each of those mean, from the Bible's, not yours or mine or the Pope's perspective? Do a, uh, whatchacallit. Hypothesis.

Well, I'm not exchanging with others, I'm exchanging with you. What does 'create' mean? Do you hypothesize it relates to 'ex nihilo'? 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?

[otseng]

Atheist always do that. It's stupid. It are stupids. That bug you? Huh?

Not what the idiot "Christians" make believe they were talking about

Moderator Comment

Please tone it down with the rhetoric.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.