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: 94

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

We do not deem the world of subjective imagination as the "real world." To say that "God exists" in the subjective is to say that "Leprechaun exists." It is to say that the events in the dream you had last night actually happened. It is to confuse reality with hallucination or delusion.

When we say "God exists" it is meant that God exists independently of our own subjective imaginations; that is to say, that God exists in the real (external objective) world, independent of our beliefs and imaginations. To mean otherwise is to admit that when you cease to exist, so does god.

And I don't think that's what believers really believe, do you?
I did ask that Unicorns Monsters and that includes Leprechauns were not used in a comparison to a movement such as the main world religions. There is no comparison, and to argue on that particular platform just falls into the hands of the theists.

I do understand what an atheist understands as "God exists" I would just suggest that it is not the same understanding of the true believer. And he feels as right as you do.

The ONLY proof of the existence of God is in the subjective and that's all we can run with until the "real" one stands up. I must say I won't hold my breath.
"I did ask that Unicorns Monsters and that includes Leprechauns were not used in a comparison to a movement such as the main world religions. There is no comparison,..."

I'm afraid the comparison is direct. You're comparing size, I'm comparing justification. Do you know that in one world religion, they believe that a man flew to heaven on a winged horse? And in another world religion, they believe that a man floated to heaven in the physical? So, you see, it's not the size of the "movement" I'm comparing but the justification for the belief as an actual (real objective) event. And do you know there are countless others, even in modern times, that have seen the risen Elvis?

"I do understand what an atheist understands as "God exists" I would just suggest that it is not the same understanding of the true believer. And he feels as right as you do."

So you're saying that the believer really believes the world of the subjective imagination is as real as the objective (external) world?

[It is my belief that the believer in God believes that god is an objective independent existence. This would agree with the view of the atheist -- except the atheist doesn't believe a god is there while the believer does. But neither should hold god's existence as a subjective construct, otherwise it wouldn't be any more powerful or intelligent than the person. And it would vanish when the person dies. And that can't be god, can it?]

"The ONLY proof of the existence of God is in the subjective.."

Then it fails as a proof by default for its (in)ability to be objectively verified.
No I am not comparing size I am comparing devotion, love, adoration etc. Size is the result of those factors. When the Green Church of the Holy Leprechaun reaches even its 1st million believers then I will stand corrected.

Of course the believer really believes the world of the subjective imagination is as real as the objective, ask any lover ho sees his partner as the most beautiful in the world, or child who sees a mother as the best Mum in the world, could you see those people as they do?

And its inability to be objectively verified will remain as a the objective God does not exist so can never be verified. Trouble is it does not seem to bother the millions of believers who are growing all the time. I think its time atheist stopped patting each other on the back, stroking each others ego and trying to prove we are right to ourselves. To borrow a phrase from the enemy we are just preaching to the converted. Clearly the problem will never be resolved by logic and reason and evidence, thats been tried, its time we searched for a different route.
Clearly the problem will never be resolved by logic and reason and evidence, thats been tried, its time we searched for a different route.

You are an impatient man.
I can only live one life so why keep trying failed tactics when time is so short.
I understand that. I really do. It is frustrating, but I think it is the better way in the long run. I am only twenty-four and I do not expect sweeping change in my life time. These things take time. We should all continue to work towards the goal, though. For future generations. You should check out how many people even younger than me (kids, teens) are already non-theist's. They and there children are the key. I know I am quite the optimist. :D
When you have about 4 billion Christians and Muslims in the world today, competing to out grow each other. Sticking to the same old failed logic seems "illogical" While I am not saying that there is a better way, I am saying one should at least strive to find one. In any war one must find the enemy's weaknesses and use them against them. Its the blow that they don't see coming that will cause the most devastation, the one they can see can be blocked easily.
In love with the platonic realm of ideals eh?
I disapprove by the way.
Disapprove of what?
I disapprove of elevating the idea of something to the same status that a physical version of that idea would have.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service