What is God and does it exist?

[Ignorant]

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.

Yes probably. There exists a truth independent of thought, right? I suppose that's a premise we have to agree on. Maybe you don't think so.

Imagine if something changed in all human brains that made us unable to perceive grass with any of our senses. So whenever we walk somewhere grassy it's as if we're just walking on soil. But independent of our perception the grass still exists. It supports an ecosystem of creatures living in it (they can all perceive the grass as normal).

Now imagine something changes in human brains that makes it so nobody believes in god or has ever believed in god. Maybe something that makes us less spiritually inclined or whatever. Does god still exist, independent of human perception?
 

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

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

Nobody knows. The question is: What's your best guess?

Here's yet another way of putting it: Does your faith allow you to believe in something that you know probably doesn't exist, or do you believe through faith that it probably exists?
 

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.

About what? Faith being a defect? I can only speak for myself. I was clarifying the distinction because I was the one who initially brought it up and you made a comment about it signaling that it needed clarification.

You might think it's a cop-out that I refuse to have a take on what other atheists are saying, but this is because I genuinely don't know. I don't listen to other atheists talk about this subject. Atheism is a very simple and obvious position and there is really not that much to say about it.

[TheBlueKnight]

That's right we're asking the big questions.

Whoa, big question indeed. Who is God. Let me take a crack at it... you Bible buffs on here feel free to chime in and tell me if I'm wrong. First let us define God with a big "G" or a small "g". There are many small "g" gods, myriads even. Some are idols or manmade "gods" (praying to these is like praying to demons, and ultimately satan. This is theoretically why the Catholic church makes such a heavy use of statues). Some are gods who serve God, some are malevolent gods or demons who serve the evil one. There are hierarchies of gods and some serve as "governors" so to speak of the different principalities in the world, according to Exodus 32:8.

But there is only One God. Big "G." This is The Most High, the God of Israel, The God of the Hebrews. This is the only One that shall be worshipped. So to answer, first I shall add a Hebrew Psalm here for you to briefly peruse:

God presides in the divine assembly;
He renders judgment among the gods:
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?" Selah

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
uphold the rights of the afflicted and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
They do not know or understand;
they wander in the darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I have said, ‘You are gods;
you are all sons of The Most High.'
But like mortals you will die,
and like rulers you will fall.”

Arise, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are Your inheritance.

So we can see that God is Someone who is All-powerful, who created Heaven and earth and all things in them, and who loves justice and righteousness. In a nutshell. Furthermore, we know this God came to earth as the God-Man Jesus Christ and will return at some point. Hope this makes sense. Shalom.

[Sirius]

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?

Definitely objective and if you mean perception then also subjective. Both basically, your supposed to have a relationship. 

What does it matter though? Would it change anything for you that you can't change now already and what if it changes everything? Can be a reasons why you don't know..

Regarding some of the sin and love and compassion stuff in the thread..if a pastors ask you what the fuck you are doing and you respond in anger and walk away that's an interesting reaction. gosh darn it! I came here for good feelings and now I feel bad! How dare you poke at my unresolved issues!

An alterative would be to join him in prayer if you are guilt free and your life is all sorted for those that is not. Maybe ask that he is blessed with a kinder heart if you really have issue, responding in anger is the worst reaction and it's all about fear at that point of time. That just doesn't sound like a loving and compassionate reaction or spreading it, perhaps because you are a sinner ahahahahahahaha

Repent!

[Bootless]

Definitely objective and if you mean perception then also subjective. Both basically, your supposed to have a relationship. 
...
Repent!

So that would be an objectively existing person who wants a relationship with me.

I find it passing odd that the argument from divine hiddenness was first elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. It strikes me that only in 1993 is a book written that addresses an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years.

So here it is briefly (from the source linked):

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
   
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
   
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
   
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
   
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
   

But why exactly does it presume a perfectly loving God? Because the Theists say so. And yet the Theists, the big three Abrahamic groups rely on texts to define Him, and those texts say that He is not perfectly loving.
See: Romans 9:

13Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be! 15For he said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

19You will say then to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?” 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?” 21Or hasn’t the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? 22What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory—

-WEB

There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling Omnibenevolence either in this life or in texts about some sort of afterlife.

What am I to make of repentance? What does that even mean? Imagine walking along, going about your daily business and you come upon this:

1Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the men who dwell in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no, but, unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way.”

-Luke 13 WEB

It's like what? A tower will fall on me or something? If I repent (whatever that means) then a tower won't fall on me and neither will soldiers kill me?

[quintessentone]

So that would be an objectively existing person who wants a relationship with me.

I find it passing odd that the argument from divine hiddenness was first elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. It strikes me that only in 1993 is a book written that addresses an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years.

So here it is briefly (from the source linked):

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
   
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
   
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
   
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
   
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
   

But why exactly does it presume a perfectly loving God? Because the Theists say so. And yet the Theists, the big three Abrahamic groups rely on texts to define Him, and those texts say that He is not perfectly loving.
See: Romans 9:
There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling Omnibenevolence either in this life or in texts about some sort of afterlife.

What am I to make of repentance? What does that even mean? Imagine walking along, going about your daily business and you come upon this:
It's like what? A tower will fall on me or something? If I repent (whatever that means) then a tower won't fall on me and neither will soldiers kill me?

Repentance is a difficult concept because it seems to be that one must do a complete turnaround in one's mind, heart and spirit to that of what? a particular church's teachings? Jesus' teachings? God's limited commandments? Would this be just another control tool? Does diving completely into religious faith serve to help one to fully understand their mistakes? How can it when church leaders don't understand the human condition on all levels and argue amongst themselves as to interpretation of scripture?

[Sirius]

So that would be an objectively existing person who wants a relationship with me.

I find it passing odd that the argument from divine hiddenness was first elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. It strikes me that only in 1993 is a book written that addresses an issue that has plagued humanity for thousands of years.

So here it is briefly (from the source linked):

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
   
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
   
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
   
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
   
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
   

But why exactly does it presume a perfectly loving God? Because the Theists say so. And yet the Theists, the big three Abrahamic groups rely on texts to define Him, and those texts say that He is not perfectly loving.
See: Romans 9:
There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling Omnibenevolence either in this life or in texts about some sort of afterlife.

What am I to make of repentance? What does that even mean? Imagine walking along, going about your daily business and you come upon this:
It's like what? A tower will fall on me or something? If I repent (whatever that means) then a tower won't fall on me and neither will soldiers kill me?

Don't stress it mate. I was only teasing. It's interesting that I have none of your issues and wonder about none those things you listed.

[Bootless]

Repentance is a difficult concept because it seems to be that one must do a complete turnaround in one's mind, heart and spirit to that of what? a particular church's teachings? Jesus' teachings? God's limited commandments? Would this be just another control tool? Does diving completely into religious faith serve to help one to fully understand their mistakes? How can it when church leaders don't understand the human condition on all levels and argue amongst themselves as to interpretation of scripture?

Yes. Pretty much. "Submit to what I tell you. Pray and you will get it"

So it is written that Jesus asked "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole World but loses his soul?"

The answer is that he gets to die of old age in bed with virgins to keep him warm. I speak now of the legendary King David. Held by one and all to be Yahweh's, God's, and Allah's holy prophet.

He was a brigand; leading an armed band around extorting farmers for "protection", killing those who refused to give them food and drink. He was an adulterer, murderer, committed infanticide of Bathsheba's first born (by a prophet's command). He allowed thousands of innocents to die for his sin. And yet he was a man after God's own heart.

And he died in bed with virgins keeping his body warm. So did he keep his soul, or did he lose it? "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

We all die. I'm not a dualist. I don't think there is some part of a mortal that survives death. Probably not a very acceptable position to some people, but there it is.

[Maxmars]

I can't really figure out if this should be a response to anyone specific... since it will touch upon multiple posts, I hope you forgive the indirectness.

@Bootless,  thanks for that post... I am a sucker for listed bullet points... so

So here it is briefly (from the source linked)

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
   
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
   
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
   
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
   
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
   

God is perceived by many as incomprehensible, whose scope and breadth of knowledge transcends our ability to actually "understand/comprehend."  God can plainly see what we only suppose, presume, or conjecture... God transcends time... (unlike the human condition...God always knew what he knows now, and their is no surprises for God... (According to many traditions... the creation of "humans" changed all that... which, reason accepting axioms, God represents the full purpose of reality.

1. We have faith that God is loving.... We are traditionally reassured that God loves "us."  

Whatever passes for a conception of "perfectly" loving is within the scope of God as a manifestation...
but as to weather the statement relates to a disavowal of existence... God loves us therefore he doesn't exist... obviously this point is a logical framework for the final assertion.

2. + 3. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.

This is a hard, uncomfortable stretch to adopt into the argument.  Humans have choice as a component of their very presence in life.  Dominant reason, generally speaking, demands both dissent and support to refine itself.  Disbelief is a function of reason...

Perhaps the author was fixated on the 'social compliance compulsion' which rears its' head whenever resistance is met.  Atheism is proof positive that point 2 is invalid, if only because point 3 is valid.

4.  Leeeeeap!  These are axioms.... not deductions... why they were presented as deduction seems uncomfortably to indicate this noble author wasn't really informing... but instead "persuading."  (It's a hazard every treatise suffers from when it is intended for a wide audience, I think.)

God is somehow obliged to "fit" into the modelling of the model idea... or "God doesn't exit?"

The older adult in me gently adds... "If life worked that we we'd all be dead."


@Sirius

Definitely objective and if you mean perception then also subjective. Both basically, your supposed to have a relationship. 

What does it matter though?

Just wondering if someone insists you can't have it both ways...  I think that it would matter then... perhaps these are two different topics... but is the difference only in what we can (or can't) measure?

@Ignorant

There exists a truth independent of thought, right? I suppose that's a premise we have to agree on. Maybe you don't think so.

If there was no separation between thought and truth... this would be entirely different conversation...
and a very large portion of out communities might just as well fall silent, for there might be precious little to bother talking about, relatively speaking.  Maybe the point of social conformity is to silence us all.
 

Now imagine something changes in human brains that makes it so nobody believes in god or has ever believed in god.

I wonder if we could even conceive of the idea of God at all...
the argument would be moot...
like arguing about whether Shakespeare would have liked Tetris.
(If you'll pardon the ham-handed metaphor.)

Of course, my faith does not "create" God. 
This isn't tinker bell who asks you clap and believe so she can live.
God is not temporary, nor tied to 'things' and 'the human world" in the sense that he saw its end when he made it... despite 'free will' and 'choice' appearing as a constrain to our reason.... omniscience.

While humans pewl and writhe over human 'things' that are entirely 'human built', humans also extend their world further and further outward... some apparently contend we can't survive ... some people are actually choosing to help that be true.... Others keep reaching for that point from which more can be understood more plainly, and the nature of this universe can be revealed... it is, after all, our home... even if it's only for a short while.  (Sorry... went over the top again?)

PS - Repentance is not universally understood... I don't think it can be. 
Speaking as a layman

Sin is individual 
So must be repentance, which cannot exist without shame...
lest it grown into a larger sin... hollow mockery.. penance for "society" before God.

Penance is NOT repentance....
Only the sinner can repent for the actual sin.




I should stop digging this hole, huh?

[Bootless]

God is perceived by many as incomprehensible, whose scope and breadth of knowledge transcends our ability to actually "understand/comprehend."  God can plainly see what we only suppose, presume, or conjecture... God transcends time... (unlike the human condition...God always knew what he knows now, and their is no surprises for God... (According to many traditions... the creation of "humans" changed all that... which, reason accepting axioms, God represents the full purpose of reality.

1. We have faith that God is loving.... We are traditionally reassured that God loves "us."  

You say "God is perceived by many as incomprehensible" yet still not committing to it yourself. Okay.
But You say, "God can plainly see what we only suppose, presume, or conjecture... God transcends time..."
and since "We are traditionally reassured that God loves 'us'" then faith perhaps connects to that transcendent to make it immanent (present to present self)?

The problem is that theists demand that atheists prove there is no God, or at least no reason to conclude there is a God. That's backwards. The guy who wrote the book queried theists to arrive at the first point, "perfectly loving."

A bunch of people died in Texas flooding recently. Is that what love looks like in real life? There is genocide happening now. People being intentionally starved, then shot when attempting to get food. Is that what love looks like?

What good can it be to anyone else if I'm just sitting in a well stocked house, complete with running water and electricity just grooving away to some love feeling connection to "transcendence"? Seems like escapism to me. Where is the power of transcendence manifesting to intervene for the objects of love? Absent. Hence the argument from non-belief or hiddenness. Theists can't unhide the hidden. Why should any one think it's reasonable?

I was watching one of those call-in shows on Youtube. I think it was AronRa and someone else. The caller suggested that they were just being recalcitrant so they could pursue decadence. They started laughing, "I suppose we're suppressing the truth by our wickedness" (Referring to Romans 1:18,19). Paul claimed that the righteousness of God was made plain. Sorry, it isn't plain.

Quoting from Wikipedia again (ibid)

Unreasonable demands on God

This argument is sometimes seen as demanding God to prove his existence, for example by performing miracles. Critics have argued that even in Schellenberg's more refined version, the nonbeliever is imposing their own epistemological expectations on the will of God. A detailed discussion of these kinds of demands, and their moral and spiritual implications, is provided by Paul Moser,[sup][30][/sup] who says that such demands amount to cognitive idolatry. He defines idolatry as "our not letting the true God be Lord in our lives" and instead committing to something other than God by pursuing a quest for self-realization in our own terms. If this is idolatry in our actions, then idolatry in our knowing, he says, is as follows:

Cognitive idolatry relies on a standard for knowledge that excludes the primacy of the morally self-transforming knowledge of God central to knowing God as Lord. It rests on an epistemological standard, whether empiricist, rationalist, or some hybrid, that does not let God be Lord. Such idolatry aims to protect one's lifestyle from serious challenge by the God who calls, convicts, and reconciles. It disallows knowledge of God as personal subject and Lord to whom we are morally and cognitively responsible. It allows at most for knowledge of God as an undemanding object of human knowledge.[sup][30][/sup]

Schellenberg considers this criticism irrelevant to the argument, which in his opinion, does not impose any demands for demonstrations of God's power, but rather looks for evidence that "need only be such as will be causally sufficient for belief in the absence of resistance... This result might be effected through the much more spiritually appropriate means of religious experience, interpreted in the sensitive manner of a Pascal or a Kierkegaard."[sup][10][/sup] Schellenberg then expresses a certain frustration that theistic writers who otherwise extol the value of religious experiences deny non-theists the right to do so.

[Maxmars]

You say "God is perceived by many as incomprehensible" yet still not committing to it yourself. Okay.

You got me there.. it's the kind of thing that happens when I type a sentence. then walk away for five minutes to resume...

I thing the question of Gods' parameters seems silly. We simply cannot 'understand' a thing so far beyond our ability to perceive. So It's hard for me to say "God is this or that..." when by definition... I have no way to 'define' something like God.

But You say, "God can plainly see what we only suppose, presume, or conjecture... God transcends time..."
and since "We are traditionally reassured that God loves 'us'" then faith perhaps connects to that transcendent to make it immanent (present to present self)?

Very interesting, "Perhaps Faith makes the transcendent imminent." That could just be written off to sentimental perception... but I like the idea a lot.

The problem is that theists demand that atheists prove there is no God, or at least no reason to conclude there is a God. That's backwards. The guy who wrote the book queried theists to arrive at the first point, "perfectly loving."

I see the "Prove it is," or "prove it's not" cop out often... it is almost never used properly, and I think proving a negative isn't really possible through argumentation...

Not a fan of that tactic.

A bunch of people died in Texas flooding recently. Is that what love looks like in real life? There is genocide happening now. People being intentionally starved, then shot when attempting to get food. Is that what love looks like?

What good can it be to anyone else if I'm just sitting in a well stocked house, complete with running water and electricity just grooving away to some love feeling connection to "transcendence"? Seems like escapism to me. Where is the power of transcendence manifesting to intervene for the objects of love? Absent. Hence the argument from non-belief or hiddenness. Theists can't unhide the hidden. Why should any one think it's reasonable?

I was watching one of those call-in shows on Youtube. I think it was AronRa and someone else. The caller suggested that they were just being recalcitrant so they could pursue decadence. They started laughing, "I suppose we're suppressing the truth by our wickedness" (Referring to Romans 1:18,19). Paul claimed that the righteousness of God was made plain. Sorry, it isn't plain.

Quoting from Wikipedia again (ibid)

It's difficult to answer for another's utterances..even if I may not necessarily reject the general message.

I suspect many people "expect" something from the potential existence of God... something they can value beyond faith. Not sure how that might work... Same can be said for kindness, compassion, or anything not material...

My faith takes a certain form, anyone else's faith will take on the form of the person...

I am the least of authorities about anything material... but my faith is mine.. I know it...
I may not be able to explain it... but to me .. it is real and tangible.. within myself.
I don't "need" to explain it... even though I'd like to... but that deficiency does not translate to doubt. 

Sorry about the sporadic responses and all... I've been having a rough time recently...but it will end.