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?

[alexxcJRO]

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.

There is no atheist fallacy. Don't need to invent things.
Atheism definitions can be found on a simple search and covers both weak atheist and strong atheist.


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
https://www.google.com/search?q=atheism ... -serp#ip=1

atheism
noun
athe·​ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Synonyms of atheism
1
a
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b
: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2
archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

atheism
noun [ U ]
UK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/ US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/
Add to word list
the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/atheism

[alexxcJRO]

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.

The imaginary and logically impossible Yahweh did not created anything. Humans(Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are result of a process called Evolution by 5 mechanisms: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, non-random mating, and natural selection.

[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.

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.

Ok Now I get it. I have no reason to believe that the 'primitives' knew better about anything than we know now. There is pretty good evidence - as I explained - that the primitives invented gods to explain what they did not understand. It's pretty evident that they were fantasizing about thinks they did not know about. To deny that as a valid idea at least and argue that they knew better than we know now, and (I reiterate) dump on skeptics ("It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept") indicates that you have some very odd ideas.

I gather that you responded to my 'Humpty fallacy'. Your response was footling, dismissive and deprecating. Which is par for the Biblical apologist (as it seems you were all along) course. Pretty much 'everything an atheist says is wrong'. That is not a valid let alone considered response. It is theist fingers in the ears.

The fact remains that the Humpty quote (Lewis Caroll 'Through the looking glass') is one that poses a logical conundrum. I propose that it is actually a fallacy, and applies to your irrelevant fielding of other meanings of 'god' and why it contributed nothing to the discussion, and only would confuse the debate if you had been allowed to get away with it. You were called and all you can do is stick your fingers in the ears and yell (in effect) "Nah, atheists are wrong about everything", and try to pretend that's showing up as a logical fallacy on my side.

It isn't a good look for you, and happens so often - Theist apologists thinking they can bamboozle the atheists with pretty infantile objections. I would guess you have been smokescreening pretty well up to know with evasions and confusions, but now we see it's all about Bible belief, including Genesis, it seems, and now you are caught.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

All very odd. We had the nonsense about 'god' meaning anything of value (you didn't used to be Goldnrule on another Forum far, far away did you? He used to waste time in irrelevant semantic debates, too) and now it seems that you consider a pretty standard always existed Jehovah validated by scripture (as though that proved anything). Perhaps them we could confine the discussion to areas of discussion relevant to the forum and not irrelevant sub -definitions of 'god'.

Perhaps the molecular biology is best left alone as we don't know what 'god' it relates to anyway. Might as well be Allah as Jehovah.

What it seems (Finally) about is the god of the Bible, and a Bible taken literally with its' story about Adam. There is no good reason to believe it. What about that?

[Data]

Ok Now I get it. I have no reason to believe that the 'primitives' knew better about anything than we know now.

Not exactly, you have no reason to believe that the primitives:
1. Were any less confident about what they knew about their 'world' than you know about yours.
2. Knew less about their world than you know about their world.
3. Would not be far more capable of surviving in your world if they were placed alongside you and the power was cut than you would be if you were placed in theirs.

If your theoretical, metaphysical, experimental Darwinian evolution has anything to do with the survival of the fittest, the loss of your world is a foregone conclusion.

There is pretty good evidence - as I explained - that the primitives invented gods to explain what they did not understand.

Other than the fact that someone who doesn't know what they are talking about says it or writes it in a book, there isn't. Is there any evidence that you don't fully understand things about your world and therefore must create gods to explain those things? You don't even know what a god is and you're going to give me evidence that you know something about why they were allegedly created? I don't think so.

It's pretty evident that they were fantasizing about thinks they did not know about.

Things they did not know about? And what would have necessitated that? Oh, it's pretty evident you know what they were thinking! Try that in a court of logic. You know what they thought.

To deny that as a valid idea at least and argue that they knew better than we know now, and (I reiterate) dump on skeptics ("It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept") indicates that you have some very odd ideas.

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

I gather that you responded to my 'Humpty fallacy'. Your response was footling, dismissive and deprecating. Which is par for the Biblical apologist (as it seems you were all along) course. Pretty much 'everything an atheist says is wrong'. That is not a valid let alone considered response. It is theist fingers in the ears.

Your hypocrisy would astound me if I hadn't been doing this for so long.

The fact remains that the Humpty quote (Lewis Caroll 'Through the looking glass') is one that poses a logical conundrum.

Only in application to the skeptic. I give you 6,000 years of evidence of what the word god means in several languages, including your own current definition from Oxford dictionary and you say I'm changing the meaning of the word, not you, who doesn't even have a cursory knowledge of what the word means.

I propose that it is actually a fallacy, and applies to your irrelevant fielding of other meanings of 'god' and why it contributed nothing to the discussion, and only would confuse the debate if you had been allowed to get away with it. You were called and all you can do is stick your fingers in the ears and yell (in effect) "Nah, atheists are wrong about everything", and try to pretend that's showing up as a logical fallacy on my side.

The only reason the real definition of the word god is problematic for you is that yours is based upon a faulty premise.

[POI]

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.

Great, we agree. Jehovah existed before anything else.  Anything means "anything at all", besides Jehovah. This includes the natural, the supernatural, or other. Anything at all. Any environment/realm/space/other did not exist at one time. This is not logically possible, believer or not. Why? At some point, Jehovah ruled and also occupied "nothing at all"?

Now, the Bible is talking to people who have no knowledge, experience or study of that concept.

Great apologetic answer. "We cannot possibly know, but it's true."

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 term 'spirit', when the Bible was written, was interchangeable with (wind, breath, life force, and air). The Bible writers did not know how air works. Humans which lived, produced breath/air. Dead humans did not. When their 'breath' stopped, then their 'breath', 'life force', 'air', 'spirit', then left their body. This was not an exclusive concept to the Abrahamic religions either.

The material. You say matter or energy can't be created. Okay. Maybe.

Maybe the 'universe', as we know it, 'began to exist', but merely changed form. This would not consist of coming into existence. Only a true 'creator' could do such a thing. Since we do not know what existed before our known universe, to place faith upon any type of dogma seems quite rash/hasty.

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.

Then please stop borrowing from 'science' only when it is convenient.

************************************

Whether you want to admit it or not, 'science' is the reason the 'god of the gaps' argument becomes smaller and smaller. Meaning, the gaps become smaller. No longer can one state God literally throws lightening. Thus, some Zeus believers would then merely shift the argument to taste. 'It was meant to be a metaphor.'

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok Now I get it. I have no reason to believe that the 'primitives' knew better about anything than we know now.

Not exactly, you have no reason to believe that the primitives:
1. Were any less confident about what they knew about their 'world' than you know about yours.
2. Knew less about their world than you know about their world.
3. Would not be far more capable of surviving in your world if they were placed alongside you and the power was cut than you would be if you were placed in theirs.

If your theoretical, metaphysical, experimental Darwinian evolution has anything to do with the survival of the fittest, the loss of your world is a foregone conclusion.

There is pretty good evidence - as I explained - that the primitives invented gods to explain what they did not understand.

Other than the fact that someone who doesn't know what they are talking about says it or writes it in a book, there isn't. Is there any evidence that you don't fully understand things about your world and therefore must create gods to explain those things? You don't even know what a god is and you're going to give me evidence that you know something about why they were allegedly created? I don't think so.

It's pretty evident that they were fantasizing about thinks they did not know about.

Things they did not know about? And what would have necessitated that? Oh, it's pretty evident you know what they were thinking! Try that in a court of logic. You know what they thought.

To deny that as a valid idea at least and argue that they knew better than we know now, and (I reiterate) dump on skeptics ("It just amazes me, the sheer foolishness of such a concept") indicates that you have some very odd ideas.

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

I gather that you responded to my 'Humpty fallacy'. Your response was footling, dismissive and deprecating. Which is par for the Biblical apologist (as it seems you were all along) course. Pretty much 'everything an atheist says is wrong'. That is not a valid let alone considered response. It is theist fingers in the ears.

Your hypocrisy would astound me if I hadn't been doing this for so long.

The fact remains that the Humpty quote (Lewis Caroll 'Through the looking glass') is one that poses a logical conundrum.

Only in application to the skeptic. I give you 6,000 years of evidence of what the word god means in several languages, including your own current definition from Oxford dictionary and you say I'm changing the meaning of the word, not you, who doesn't even have a cursory knowledge of what the word means.

I propose that it is actually a fallacy, and applies to your irrelevant fielding of other meanings of 'god' and why it contributed nothing to the discussion, and only would confuse the debate if you had been allowed to get away with it. You were called and all you can do is stick your fingers in the ears and yell (in effect) "Nah, atheists are wrong about everything", and try to pretend that's showing up as a logical fallacy on my side.

The only reason the real definition of the word god is problematic for you is that yours is based upon a faulty premise.

This was a total waste of your time. You are in denial of all evidence and evolution too, it seems, which should show where the problem is. The faulty premise is that anybody other than you is talking about any other meaning of 'god' but the relevant one. Not even the gods of particular religions. I could go into a court of law and produce evidence that the primitives knew less than we do now AND thought that natural phenomenon were the doings of gods. You are the one who would be laughed out of court and I don't think you are even serious on the thread. This looks like the final phase - sauce - .what else to say that people who write books 'do not know what they are talking about'? - because you have no argument left,

And you may take that as a compliment or any other way.

[Replying to POI in post #106]I have to applaud your patience. I am out of it. I begin to think someone is either so woefully ignorant or deluded or both that debate is futile, or is just messing us about hoping to scrape a cheap irrelevant point.

[POI]

I have to applaud your patience. I am out of it. I begin to think someone is either so woefully ignorant or deluded or both that debate is futile, or is just messing us about hoping to scrape a cheap irrelevant point.

Thank you. Yea, others have dropped out too, here or elsewhere. Please also recall what he stated in post 88:

"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?"

[Data]

Great, we agree. Jehovah existed before anything else.  Anything means "anything at all", besides Jehovah. This includes the natural, the supernatural, or other. Anything at all. Any environment/realm/space/other did not exist at one time. This is not logically possible, believer or not. Why? At some point, Jehovah ruled and also occupied "nothing at all"?

In that you go from the simple I requested you maintain to employing Occam's Razor. You stray into the ideological, even possibly theological, instead of the Biblical. And it isn't that I disagree with your conclusion, in fact I've used that conclusion in prior discussions I've had on this subject. Though I see no reason to state it as impossible. If it is scripturally supported to conclude that Jehovah existed before anything else, why would it be impossible that he ruled and occupied nothing at all? It goes without saying that that was the case.

Great apologetic answer. "We cannot possibly know, but it's true."

I didn't say it was true. I said we have no knowledge, experience or study of the concept. That doesn't mean it's true, it means we can't understand fully what it actually means.

The term 'spirit', when the Bible was written, was interchangeable with (wind, breath, life force, and air). The Bible writers did not know how air works. Humans which lived, produced breath/air. Dead humans did not. When their 'breath' stopped, then their 'breath', 'life force', 'air', 'spirit', then left their body. This was not an exclusive concept to the Abrahamic religions either.

I would agree with that except for the assumption they didn't know how air works. Again, Occam's Razor. I would need evidence for that and intended relevance.

Maybe the 'universe', as we know it, 'began to exist', but merely changed form. This would not consist of coming into existence.

Yeah, this doesn't make any sense to me. Genesis 1:1 begins with the heavens and earth already created. Complete. It was done before Genesis 1:1.

Only a true 'creator' could do such a thing.

Evidence? Occam.

Since we do not know what existed before our known universe, to place faith upon any type of dogma seems quite rash/hasty.

I don't know, is that subjective? Maybe you could elaborate? I think to place faith in any type of dogma is foolish regardless.

Then please stop borrowing from 'science' only when it is convenient.

I'm no more borrowing from science than you are theology, and I will continue to do that.

Whether you want to admit it or not, 'science' is the reason the 'god of the gaps' argument becomes smaller and smaller.

I don't care. How is that supposed to be relevant to me? I don't use terms like 'god of the gaps' because I don't know or care what that involves. So, if someone says you can't believe that because you believe the 'god of the gaps' argument I would say no. I mean, if you want to make such an argument that's fine, so long as it isn't my responsibility to know what that is before you make it. You understand what I'm saying? I'm not pigeonholed by ideological or theological presuppositions, I guess is what it amounts to.

Meaning, the gaps become smaller.

Sorry, I don't even know what that means.

No longer can one state God literally throws lightening.

Look, I'm a Bible student. If you want to argue a point it has to do with that. Otherwise, you know - I'm not really involved.

Thus, some Zeus believers would then merely shift the argument to taste. 'It was meant to be a metaphor.'

Okay.

[Data]

This was a total waste of your time.

I could have told you that from the start. I do this to pass the time.

You are in denial of all evidence and evolution too, it seems, which should show where the problem is.

Oh, I have most certainly always denied the validity of evolution, even long before becoming a believer. It's laughable. In school when they began to teach it, I thought it was equally ridiculous as religion.