Just another “fundi” thought, perhaps both believers and non believers are right, they are just right in their different ways.

God does exist, he exists courtesy of the billions of people who believe in him, they might use different names for him and attribute him different powers, and as each sees him in a different way then they can't all be right about his makeup, in fact if only one can be right while everyone else is wrong.

But to all of them he is GOD. He is as real as "LOVE" "HATE" "FEAR" "AFFECTION" "SORROW" and other such "REAL" things that cannot be empirically proven because they exist only in the thoughts and feelings of the individual human being, but are real and exist nevertheless.

The cliché "God is love" may be more right than it first seems. Who here will say Love does not exist, or even sorrow, yet they cannot be tasted seen felt or otherwise empirically proven. However, for those who have experienced them, they are very very real. And observing the effects on the lover or the grief stricken is no proof as similar effects can be observed in the Theist relationship with their God.

Within the “existence” debate it really does not matter if the God in question is a physical being of some sort or only exists in the mind of men, he still exists equally well in either case, the believer experiences God just as he experiences love, so to the believer God does exist and in that form will only cease to exist when the last man stops experiencing him. And lets not have the old comparison arguments about unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc, they are not "experienced" in the same way God, love, hate sorrow is experienced.

At the same time to the unbeliever God does not exist, but just what God do they not believe in, usually it's the supernatural being that creates worlds, man, etc, and they are quite right, such a being is totally illogical and cannot and does not exist. But that is much to narrow a viewpoint, the "God" in question is a much broader and elusive thing than that. I have no doubt that despite the impossibility of the existence of such a supreme being someone can experience God just as someone can experience love, or sorrow while others may never experience either. And simply because it is not experienced by everyone does not make Love or God anymore unreal, just more debatable.

I know the old arguments will continue about the composition of any given God, in fact it would be strange were it not to continue. However, it will never be resolved as it’s impossible for the believer or non believer to prove something that does not exist. But the actual existence of God, certainly as a concept that affects many people cannot be denied, no more than the existence of Love or Hate. The very fact that we discuss God, both believer and non believer causes him to exist in the first place. So if we accept that a believer can truly "experience" God then it’s not the actual existence or non existence of a God we are debating, as clearly something has affected the believer. It’s the nature of the cause of that effect wherein lies the real debate.

So in the forum of debate there is no such thing as a believer or non believer, we are ALL believers, we just believe differently about the same concept. Perhaps a closer study of Objectum sexuality would cast more light on the subject, or perhaps we are all mentally ill, some to a greater degree than others.

Views: 91

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

And when you say that it "only exists for them", you've proven the atheists' point, because if it exists only subjectively, it doesn't exist objectively, which is the argument we're making.

If something exists only subjectively, then it's not any more a part of the universe than any other affect, and we're talking about a psychological phenomena.

Secondly, while it obviously must be conceded that objective reality can only be experienced subjectively, it should be obvious that, whether objective reality truly exists, it acts as though it exists. Therefore our quest is to try to understand that - and there's no use in throwing up one's hands and giving up because we occasionally lack data and make an incorrect judgment. Regardless of the occasional error, we do come to better probabilistic understandings of this objective reality, and there's no use in substituting an error-prone theory for one more correct.
You dismiss everything that makes us human so lightly, love, hate, envy, greed, lust, and of course belief. Naturally nothing can exist subjectively and objectively at the same time but its the mixture of both that is so much fun.

Neither I would I ever give up in trying to understand objective reality, but an important part of that understanding should be that we are unlikely to ever fully understand objective reality
I don't see how I've dismissed subjectivity - all I've done is point out the fact that it seems to be a product of the material world.
I would suggest subjectivity is an offshoot of the material world.
I certainly believe there is a reality, my reality, however I hope I will never be arrogant enough to think I know what "real" reality is.

"What good is a subjective truth if it is, in objective reality, false? " The trouble with the God thing is that it can never be proven false as an objective God does not exist, so this statement has no meaning in the context of God.

A thought just occurred, there is one possible way that God can be proven not to exist, and that's if a supreme being appeared, demonstrated to us that he created everything and was the God of the main religions, then informed us that creation was an obscene joke and switched us off.

I like this guy Kierkegaard he sounds interesting, I will look him up
Perhaps I know my opponent only to well.

But Graywolf and John D are correct its time to move on.

I will strive to prise open the odd mind with a different approach, but alas I am fairly certain of the end result.
Its being asked to act independently on something every day of the week by its believers and on occasion they truly belive they are being answered. And you know what they say about an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters.
In re the existence of god, I found this to be very well done. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=player_embed...
Debating god's existence is possible, only for as long as "god" remains an undefined "something or other", but as soon as we go back to the bible and compile a complete description of god, it becomes clear that no such an animal exists.

It sounds all cute and cuddly to say (and believe) that "God is Love" but even the most devout Christian would be stunned into silence if he bothered to compile a description of god from the bible:

He roars, he hisses, curses, taketh not pleasure in the legs of man, his heart makes a noise, his breath causes frost (and kindles coals). He never repents and is weary with repenting. He smites men with emerods, sanctions slavery, orders the slaughter of men women children and animals, and spreads dung upon men's faces. No man has ever seen god, yet Moses saw him face to face. He tempted mankind on many occasions and then declares that he has never tempted mankind...

Not even the most fanatical Christian can prove the existence of the contradictory god of the bible. It's the most nonsensical story ever written and people continue to believe in him only because they are too damn lazy to read their bible.
They are likely to argue that the Bible, despite being "God's book" was written by man who is fallible and not God who is infallible. Call it a "God's biography" written by different authors who gleaned their information from different sources. You know what they say about a story endlessly told, at the end of the line it bears no resemblance to the original story.
Of course, when they do this they pull the rug out from under themselves, since they've now destroyed their direct line to Jesus - unless they're going to claim that they've received their own personal revelation that doesn't match the Bible, in which case they can hardly be considered Christian (or Muslims with the Koran, etc.).
Ahh but you are now talking logic, which has and will continue to fail to win any arguments with theists. They will just say that's God talked through man, who, given his human weaknesses, could not decipher the word of God correctly etc etc. Ad nauseam

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service