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?

[POI]

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.

Is it possible your understanding of evolutionary theory is based upon a false premise? And yet, if you ask an evolutionary biologist, you will get the same answer, from one to the next. And yet, if I ask questions about Christianity, I get countless conflicting answers. You guys cannot even agree about what the Bible really teaches.

[POI]

1) 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. 2) 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.

1) Nope. Just using based logic. And sense we are restricted to using language to explain, we must choose words to explain.

2) Please explain what a 'nothing' is? I'll start. Absence of anything at all. God once ruled and dwelled within and over the absence of anything at all Okay, your turn.

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.

Then how about just dismiss the claim. If we cannot know about it, and we are not smart enough to ever know about it, then maybe the claim itself was also received in error because we are too stupid to translate anything from a divine agency. And yet, God chose to make some exchange coherent? Just dismiss it.

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.

If you agree with 'spirit' being directly interchangeable with air/breath, then you must also agree that these ancients had no idea how air worked. Meaning, the 'air/breath/other' was the 'spirit', when written.

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.

Okay? But they did not always exist. Which means, at whatever point, before Gen 1:1 or at Gen. 1:1, Jehovah 'created' it. If the
'universe' always was, in one form or another, there would be no necessity for a 'supernatural creator.'

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.

You are a Christian. Hence, you fit in with dogma. I am an agnostic atheist. No dogma need apply. I am not making a hasty or rash conclusion. You are.

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.

Because to question/address/solve problems, we essentially have three arenas for use as a tool: philosophy, theology, science. Though not always perfect, which one of the three continues to mostly forge us ahead, while the others instead keep us at a perpetual standstill? Hint, it's likely the one in bold.

Meaning, the gaps become smaller.

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

Then maybe you can 'google it' If you were earnest in this exchange, you would at least easily find out what it is, and why I feel it's quite relevant in this exchange. Essentially, as we discover more, the gaps for god become smaller and smaller. Think how much smaller these gaps for god will become, moving forward.

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.

It's a reason you can no longer logically be "sola scriptura".

[otseng]

It is theist fingers in the ears.

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

Moderator Comment

Please cease from the personal comments.

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.

[Data]

1) Nope. Just using based logic. And sense we are restricted to using language to explain, we must choose words to explain.

Okay. What is the evidence?

2) Please explain what a 'nothing' is? I'll start. Absence of anything at all. God once ruled and dwelled within and over the absence of anything at all :shock: Okay, your turn.

If you walk into a space and you see nothing there you say there is nothing. Are you breathing air? Is there light? Energy? If you're standing 5 miles away from a herd of elephants and you hear nothing, but then play back a recording in a manner which you can now here a low frequency sound the elephants are making to another elephant miles away, you would say there was nothing as far as elephant sounds because you couldn't hear them with your ears.

Then how about just dismiss the claim. If we cannot know about it, and we are not smart enough to ever know about it, then maybe the claim itself was also received in error because we are too stupid to translate anything from a divine agency. And yet, God chose to make some exchange coherent? Just dismiss it.

Or, we could just not make assumptions from some presupposition. We can discuss the possibility. But we can't say anything for sure. And, also, skeptics tend to take the Bible in a hyper strict literal sense, often out of context. Snakes talk. Donkeys talk. That sort of thing.

If you agree with 'spirit' being directly interchangeable with air/breath, then you must also agree that these ancients had no idea how air worked. Meaning, the 'air/breath/other' was the 'spirit', when written.

The Hebrew word for spirit can also be translated, depending on the context, as breath, wind, breeze. It comes from a root meaning to blow. The Greek word for spirit, is pneuma, from which comes the English pneumatic, pneumonia. The word means invisible active force producing visible results. Anyway, what difference would it make if they knew how air worked or not? How does it work? What matters is do we know what they mean by the words they use?

Okay? But they did not always exist. Which means, at whatever point, before Gen 1:1 or at Gen. 1:1, Jehovah 'created' it. If the
'universe' always was, in one form or another, there would be no necessity for a 'supernatural creator.'

The heavens didn't always exist. We've covered that. They were complete by the time the narrative begins at Genesis 1:1.

You are a Christian.

No.

Hence, you fit in with dogma.

No.

I am an agnostic atheist. No dogma need apply. I am not making a hasty or rash conclusion. You are.

Uh-huh.

Because to question/address/solve problems, we essentially have three arenas for use as a tool: philosophy, theology, science. Though not always perfect, which one of the three continues to mostly forge us ahead, while the others instead keep us at a perpetual standstill? Hint, it's likely the one in bold.

If you say so. But I don't care. What I do is the Bible. You want to take a philosophical, theological, or scientific approach that's fine, as long as it fits with the Bible. If it doesn't it's something else. My experience with the scientific approach commonly used by skeptics is that it is about as lame, if not more so, than philosophy or theology, just more arrogant. I could give you examples, but you wouldn't be interested I don't think.

Then maybe you can 'google it' ;) If you were earnest in this exchange, you would at least easily find out what it is, and why I feel it's quite relevant in this exchange. Essentially, as we discover more, the gaps for god become smaller and smaller. Think how much smaller these gaps for god will become, moving forward.

Not unlike science, philosophy, theology I don't care about Google. I'm not going to research your argument unless it has to do with the Bible, and you can tell me how. I'm not having a discussion with Google. If you have a point, make it. I don't care what you call it and I don't care where you get it. All I do is measure it by the Bible.

It's a reason you can no longer logically be "sola scriptura".

Oh. Well, if I can no longer logically be "sola scriptura" then that makes all the difference in the world.

[Purple Knight]

the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

The part that needs proving is why the creator of the universe should have any moral authority at all.

I would like to think that if God let the Devil create a pocket universe, it would be morally righteous to turn against that universe's creator even if you lived there and didn't know any other creator.

[Data]

the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

The part that needs proving is why the creator of the universe should have any moral authority at all.

I should point out that that wasn't my quote, it was me quoting Oxford's Dictionary. That's my fault, I should have made that dearer.

[edited to add:] Also, that doesn't need to be proven. Morality is decided upon. It doesn't matter if the source is proven or made up or whatever else could be said about it.

I would like to think that if God let the Devil create a pocket universe, it would be morally righteous to turn against that universe's creator even if you lived there and didn't know any other creator.

I'm not sure I understand. What pocket universe?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

It became evident some time back you were messing with us, but if we (or I at least) weren't sure whether it was lack of reasoning on your part or you simply winding us up the fault is yours because you were not honest with us, not ours for not being able to read minds through posts.

But if you think you are very smart in having wasted our time, I must disabuse you; we (or I) choose our battles. If there is a point to be made or lesson to be be learned, we bring the point out. As with this one - religious or theist apologetics are generally unsound to laughable, before we even getting to some of them playing infantile tricks on atheists in order to feel cleverer then unbelievers I suppose.

Otherwise, even though the bait of an an evolution - denial wrangle is being dangled in front of our noses, my inclination is to say "Ok folks, move along, nothing to see here."
[Replying to Data in post #109]

You have Occam's razor inverted. The other side of the coin from denial of burden of proof. The best explanation that fits the facts is that ancients did not only not know how air worked, they didn't even know what it was. You say 'you don't see that or where's the proof or some such. Where are the old writings explaining the working of air, now it works through breathing or what it is? You won't of course try to claim that such scientific erudition exited but have got lost. The logic is, if the evidence isn't there, the claim is invalid. The claim is not that the ancients didn't know - it is the evidence that refutes your claim that they did.

This knocks on to your incomprehension (real or feigned) that you don't see that the gaps are closing., As science learns more, the Unknowns and Unexplaineds that were the lurking gaps for God, are vanishing and the god - claim has less gaps to retreat to.

And are you really thinking to try to win a debate about evolution? Your story (even if true, it smells fishy) of dismissing it when taught at school only shows that denial and lack of comprehension is strong in this one, and goes back a long way.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #114]

Like I said, I'm generally out, and I have to bear in mind, you may just be time wasting. But as i said, if a point is o be made, it is worth making, even if you did not intend it.

Dear me. You walk into a space and see nothing and that it's nothing, even though as you say there is air there, and the ancients at least knew that wind was something moving. Even nothingness can contain sub a particles and even virtual particles. If it conained none of that that could be called true Nothing. Not to hard even for a denialist to understand. Certainly far better than you lame attempt to equate it with things there that humans can't see nor easily detect.

What was the other thing?Oh yes. Refusing to go and find explanations of stuff commonly known but demand explanations. There is expected a modicum of education and knowledge from those who debate here. Genuine questioners another matter. But the Theist apologist 'I'm not here to educate you' excuse when asked to validate a claim does have an application. We will fin ourselves obliged to explain simple stuff though why simple basic stuff needs to be explained to someone who at least has heard of Occam's razor even he seems to misunderstand it, may be questioned.

If this sounds too critical, It is deserved when serious discussion and even a wish to learn is replaced by craftiness, time - wasting and trying to score cheap, irrelevant points.

[Purple Knight]

the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

The part that needs proving is why the creator of the universe should have any moral authority at all.

I should point out that that wasn't my quote, it was me quoting Oxford's Dictionary. That's my fault, I should have made that dearer.

[edited to add:] Also, that doesn't need to be proven. Morality is decided upon. It doesn't matter if the source is proven or made up or whatever else could be said about it.

It's Oxford Dictionary's fault in my mind. I find it not outside the realm of possibility that the being described in the Bible as God exists, but the question is whether it has special moral authority. Oxford Dictionary seems to be implying that if it exists, then it does. That's the part I dispute.

I would like to think that if God let the Devil create a pocket universe, it would be morally righteous to turn against that universe's creator even if you lived there and didn't know any other creator.

I'm not sure I understand. What pocket universe?

Let's say the Devil gets to create his own universe. Is it necessarily right for any beings created within to follow whatever the Devil says is moral? I agree with you that morality is decided upon, and I say it's right to decide that no, these rules are immoral, we won't follow them.

[Data]

It's Oxford Dictionary's fault in my mind. I find it not outside the realm of possibility that the being described in the Bible as God exists, but the question is whether it has special moral authority. Oxford Dictionary seems to be implying that if it exists, then it does. That's the part I dispute.

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority;

There are different aspects of that sort of dispute, correct? Oxford is specifying that in monotheistic religions God is the authority. You don't dispute the moral authority there? Outside of those religions the moral authority would be coincidental. You wouldn't dispute that since the authority is delegated in a sense? The Bible says we were created in "God's image." Since we are physical and he is spirit that means a reflection of his qualities, characteristics. Much like a parent or ancestor. Would you dispute that sort of fatherly moral authority as our creator, and would you dispute the moral authority of parents? Would you dispute the moral authority of parents or guardians if they were morally reprehensible to your own sense of morality? Since we don't entirely decide our morality on an individual basis do you dispute the moral authority imposed upon you, knowingly or unknowingly, by your culture, times, traditions? God puts a sense of morality in our hearts, do you dispute that, or object to it? God allows man to decide his own morality in some sense since Adam's sin, demonstrating the destructive effects of that. Adam's sin was to decide for morality for himself, resulting in death, do you dispute or object to that? And finally, God gives everyone who makes the choice in acknowledgement and acceptance of Jehovah God's rightful sovereignty and moral authority to live forever in paradise on earth without disease, poverty, and moral depravity or for those who reject it to suffer everlasting destruction. Do you dispute or object to that? There's a lot packed into that, isn't there?

Let's say the Devil gets to create his own universe. Is it necessarily right for any beings created within to follow whatever the Devil says is moral? I agree with you that morality is decided upon, and I say it's right to decide that no, these rules are immoral, we won't follow them.

Would you dispute that?