What is God and does it exist?

[Maxmars]

I don't think that I understand what you mean by personal God.

...

I guess another way of asking is: Is God objective and subjective or only subjective? Can He just kick back and be like a human can with no one around or does He exist only in or as a conversation?

I think (and forgive me if this is presumptuous) that you and I are treading new ground between us, and our meanings our eluding our language... but I appreciate the effort! Thank you.

I suspect that it might serve my meaning better to say that any communicated specific answer to "What is God?" must suffer from the translation of the subjective (determined by introspection) to the objective (where 'sentiment' and perceptual variations are not satisfactory.)  You can mock it as unthinking, but it demonstrates the difficulty of a perception you don't understand, which I suggest the atheist should be willing to acknowledge dispassionately.

By "personal" I mean to state that I recognize that to fully agree with me, you would have to have lived my life, as me....  In that world of mind, there... that's where I found God... not in some book, or handed to me by someone's published thought. 

As you can see, I welcome the topic heartily... but I am not inclined to usurp my judgement for an author's, because of "who" I think they are.

(Frankly their arguments are very strong... but at least in my estimation... so is mine.)

Lot's of times I learn that I am just saying things others have already said... it doesn't disappoint me...but it also doesn't necessarily mean a good thing... since both the author and I, might be treading down the same dead-end street.  Lots of cul-de-sacs in this discussion...

In our informal search for the answer to this question, we also found the idea that we are uncertain in regards to human consciousness itself... a question whose answer could render this question entirely moot.... if as I suspect our consciousness is not "all there is."

[Ignorant]

Bootless asked a pretty specific question. I think it was a good question to ask and am curious about the answer. It would go a long way in communicating to us what god means to you.

[Maxmars]

Bootless asked a pretty specific question. I think it was a good question to ask and am curious about the answer. It would go a long way in communicating to us what god means to you.

I suppose I got lost wandering around trying to answer, and missed a direct question... please tell me which.

[Bootless]

By "personal" I mean to state that I recognize that to fully agree with me, you would have to have lived my life, as me....  In that world of mind, there... that's where I found God... not in some book, or handed to me by someone's published thought. 

As you can see, I welcome the topic heartily... but I am not inclined to usurp my judgement for an author's, because of "who" I think they are.

I was hoping that you could answer with a yes/no/I don't know.

The author was Buber. His answer was God is "The Eternal Thou". I doubt that he would have agreed to someone saying "What if I substitute the words always and only for eternal ? So God is always and only Thou".

There is a cat that spends time with me. By itself it is an It. It exists whether or not I think about it. When it jumps up on my chair and indicates that it wants me to move my keyboard so as to get on my desk, that is when we have an I-Thou relationship. It didn't cease being an it to become a thou because it exists, and is real.

The question was: Is God objective and subjective or only subjective? Can He just kick back and be like a human can with no one around or does He exist only in or as a conversation?

[Bootless]

I never got around to reading Paul Tillich's Courage to Be, although I did intend to. Here is a piece of an article written by Nathan Fifield.

Throughout history, humans have looked to the divine for help in facing the anxieties of non-being. Tillich categorizes the divine in three basic forms: 1. The Ground of Being, 2. The God of Theism, and 3. The God Beyond the God of Theism. Mystics and pantheist philosophers align themselves with the eternal Ground of Being, viewing the individual ego as illusory. While mysticism offers a powerful way to confront the anxieties of non-being, Tillich rejects the idea that the ego is an illusion. Individuality is a fundamental aspect of the human experience and denying it is ultimately unsatisfactory.
 
The Gods of Theism provide redemptive narratives and cosmologies which ease the anxieties of non-being. For Tillich however, these gods are mere projections. Like us, they are trapped within a subject/object ontology. Any god who is also an “object,” cannot provide a solution to the problem of non-being.

Visualizing Paul Tillich’s Existential Cosmology

Perhaps Buber and Tillich had the same type of God.

[Maxmars]

I was hoping that you could answer with a yes/no/I don't know.
...
The question was: Is God objective and subjective or only subjective? Can He just kick back and be like a human can with no one around or does He exist only in or as a conversation?

Such a query posed demands an answer...

The perception of God is unequivocally subjective

The connection between that and your subjective idea about a "mythical" god replacing reason
like a mind-virus is where Buber comes into play.

There is nothing in your complaint (meaning thesis) about God that addresses that which you can't explain.

The objectivity you seek comes from subjective consideration...

... As for why I defend "faith..."

I can tell you briefly that it has zero to do with anyone else.

"Faith" - contextually speaking - is NOT social... it's personal.

The denying a persons' inclination to express faith, or not, to oppose it conceptually, or endorse it as highly as "love;" is social tyranny.

"Faith" is one of the most important aspect of "free-will," (funny that once society gets into the mix... it's now, to many a de facto 'defect.') 

(As opposed to a religions... which directly "tells" you "what it all means." 

Perhaps it's an alien gestalt to some atheists...
but the differences are negotiable...
and, save human zealotry,
devoid of reason for ideological hatred.)

The vocal atheists have done exactly what they hated so about the major institutional religions...
but, engendering social stigma is something I need not elaborate on here...

Examples of the strength of faith need not be 'listed' as for a computer...
just pick examples you already heard about, they'll do.

Tell me a miracle that can't have happened, relevant to any faith....
My answer is "Talk to those you think are weak."

Faith, like love, cannot be transferred like "virtual information."   
We can only hope to be sincerely enjoined in the search for what it all means...
to be capable of embracing what we don't know, to find inspiration, not damnation. 

Not as an assault on reason, but as an opportunity to balance your life - the daily thing you may
have once borne as a burden... might not change... but faith makes you capable of finding peace...
in your life... however it manifests... 

Returning to, "Faith" - contextually speaking - is NOT social... it's personal.

I defend faith because I find it in me...
I sincerely think it is as essential as love,
I don't understand why it's there...

But since its part of me... 

The only thing I have offered that approaches the level of defense are reactions to the tropes and presumptions we continually encounter in dialogues between atheists and zealots.  (The only one's the media shows.)

They suck abjectly, in my opinion.

The "display" of attitudes and styles of verbal conflict became the entertainment...
rife with personal jabs and insults...
and that's what the media celebrates...

The repeated ideas and the 'repeated' method of discussion leads to an impossibility
for rational debate... but rational debate's boring... yeah?

I'm just "defending" the idea in me isn't borne of fear, stress, psychobabble, or 'zealotry...
and while it could be a likely case, at least in some people; the discussion about my idea of God 
need not project into the 'spectacle' of messenger debasement.

I don't characterize my past debates with atheists for 'effect.'

Happily... DI seems to attract a non-activist approach to dialog...
i.e. dialogue over entertainment... (but we can be pretty damned entertaining.) 

(Ugh!  I know I can be terribly verbose... I apologize if that's off-putting.)

[Bootless]

The only thing I have offered that approaches the level of defense are reactions to the tropes and presumptions we continually encounter in dialogues between atheists and zealots.  (The only one's the media shows.)

They suck abjectly, in my opinion.

(Ugh!  I know I can be terribly verbose... I apologize if that's off-putting.)

I hardly ever get in debates like that. Let's see ... Dec 2016. Former boss.

I've seen Youtube clips from call in shows. Yeah those can be very not pleasant. It boggles my mind that they put them out there. I would have deleted them as too embarrassing. But people make money from views on Youtube. So I've been boycotting them.

I much prefer discussions like  The Mystery of Morality: Alex O'Connor, Richard Swinburne, Jessica Frazier, Peter Singer, Jack Symes. It's a long one 1:42.

Good rant though

[Ignorant]

Such a query posed demands an answer...

The perception of God is unequivocally subjective

Perception is by definition subjective. The question is whether or not you think god exists independent of perception. It's a question about objective truth and your best guess at it.

Maybe it helps to replace god with the device you're using to view this forum right now. If someone asked you if you think that device exists, independent of anyone's perception, that would be a clear yes, right? So it's the same question but for god.

Everyone who believes god exists still has their own subjective perception of what god is. But what's being asked is whether or not god exists independent of that. Is there, in yet other words, a "true" god?

Also, to get ahead of this: No one expects you to answer with any certainty. You might say "I don't know", sure, nobody does. The question is what do you think is most likely to be true?
 

"Faith" is one of the most important aspect of "free-will," (funny that once society gets into the mix... it's now, to many a de facto 'defect.') 

Just so this distinction is clear: Societal defects aren't necessarily individual defects. Human traits can make an individual happier and healthier and still be an overall net negative for society. An example is my inclination to play games instead of being productive. Net negative for society, great for me.

[Maxmars]

Perception is by definition subjective. The question is whether or not you think god exists independent of perception. It's a question about objective truth and your best guess at it.

Perhaps I'm getting locked up by the position that thought itself is a perception.
That "thinking" anything is purely internal and not simply 'driven' by stimulus.
A conscious act of "thinking" is the product of perception.

But again, I am no authority on the subject.

Maybe it helps to replace god with the device you're using to view this forum right now. If someone asked you if you think that device exists, independent of anyone's perception, that would be a clear yes, right? So it's the same question but for god.

If I can't perceive another explanation, with that being the most likely, I would naturally presume it does. But I fail to see the comparison other than effect... I mean the behavior of a terminal seems evident here.... inference is not faith.

Everyone who believes god exists still has their own subjective perception of what god is. But what's being asked is whether or not god exists independent of that. Is there, in yet other words, a "true" god?

Also, to get ahead of this: No one expects you to answer with any certainty. You might say "I don't know", sure, nobody does. The question is what do you think is most likely to be true?

Fair point... but of course I don't know...
Its' called faith.

"Not good enough for me." some say.
It is for me.
 

Just so this distinction is clear: Societal defects aren't necessarily individual defects. Human traits can make an individual happier and healthier and still be an overall net negative for society. An example is my inclination to play games instead of being productive. Net negative for society, great for me.

Understood... I chose to perceive it that way.
However, can you cut me a little slack on this?...
Just listen to almost all talking head atheists...
and tell me I'm wrong.

[quintessentone]

Such a query posed demands an answer...

The perception of God is unequivocally subjective

The connection between that and your subjective idea about a "mythical" god replacing reason
like a mind-virus is where Buber comes into play.

There is nothing in your complaint (meaning thesis) about God that addresses that which you can't explain.

The objectivity you seek comes from subjective consideration...

... As for why I defend "faith..."

I can tell you briefly that it has zero to do with anyone else.

"Faith" - contextually speaking - is NOT social... it's personal.

The denying a persons' inclination to express faith, or not, to oppose it conceptually, or endorse it as highly as "love;" is social tyranny.

"Faith" is one of the most important aspect of "free-will," (funny that once society gets into the mix... it's now, to many a de facto 'defect.') 

(As opposed to a religions... which directly "tells" you "what it all means." 

Perhaps it's an alien gestalt to some atheists...
but the differences are negotiable...
and, save human zealotry,
devoid of reason for ideological hatred.)

The vocal atheists have done exactly what they hated so about the major institutional religions...
but, engendering social stigma is something I need not elaborate on here...

Examples of the strength of faith need not be 'listed' as for a computer...
just pick examples you already heard about, they'll do.

Tell me a miracle that can't have happened, relevant to any faith....
My answer is "Talk to those you think are weak."

Faith, like love, cannot be transferred like "virtual information."   
We can only hope to be sincerely enjoined in the search for what it all means...
to be capable of embracing what we don't know, to find inspiration, not damnation. 

Not as an assault on reason, but as an opportunity to balance your life - the daily thing you may
have once borne as a burden... might not change... but faith makes you capable of finding peace...
in your life... however it manifests... 

Returning to, "Faith" - contextually speaking - is NOT social... it's personal.

I defend faith because I find it in me...
I sincerely think it is as essential as love,
I don't understand why it's there...

But since its part of me... 

The only thing I have offered that approaches the level of defense are reactions to the tropes and presumptions we continually encounter in dialogues between atheists and zealots.  (The only one's the media shows.)

They suck abjectly, in my opinion.

The "display" of attitudes and styles of verbal conflict became the entertainment...
rife with personal jabs and insults...
and that's what the media celebrates...

The repeated ideas and the 'repeated' method of discussion leads to an impossibility
for rational debate... but rational debate's boring... yeah?

I'm just "defending" the idea in me isn't borne of fear, stress, psychobabble, or 'zealotry...
and while it could be a likely case, at least in some people; the discussion about my idea of God 
need not project into the 'spectacle' of messenger debasement.

I don't characterize my past debates with atheists for 'effect.'

Happily... DI seems to attract a non-activist approach to dialog...
i.e. dialogue over entertainment... (but we can be pretty damned entertaining.) 

(Ugh!  I know I can be terribly verbose... I apologize if that's off-putting.)

If it is any consolation here on Di, I got what where you were going.

Hey, our paths are our own, we can not walk others' path.

Explaining our paths requires being with the questioner experiencing every instance beside us. So, there you have it, the reality, you can never really know anyone else until you walk in their shoes - for a mile? For a lifetime?