Does God Exist?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, there is really no reason to explain, either you think so or you don't, no one has even a sliver of solid proof one way or another, so arguing is pointless

I don't understand this.  If there's no solid proof either way, you believe whatever you prefer to believe?  That explains your electoral predictions

No, Alcon.  That explains my life

[Boris]

If God could spontaneously exist, there's logically nothing stopping anything else from doing so too--sentient, non-sentient, even the Big Bang itself.  It seems like a bit of a logical step to assume that if something was uncreated, that uncreated something must be God.  That's especially true if you assume the existence of a certain type of God, which is a further logical leap.  (And, beyond that, there's religious dogma, at which point we're getting into the realm of the absurd.)

Nah, we shouldn't be assuming any characteristics about God other than God is the creator of our reality (so, God could have been hypothetically conceived through a process instead of spontaneously existing). If "He" weren't our creator, then God would not be "God." Since the origins of our reality can be traced to the Big Bang, that would be a logical place to being searching for evidence of a creator or perhaps evidence indicative of the creator's nature.

[Alcon]

Nah, we shouldn't be assuming any characteristics about God other than God is the creator of our reality (so, God could have been hypothetically conceived through a process instead of spontaneously existing). If "He" weren't our creator, then God would not be "God." Since the origins of our reality can be traced to the Big Bang, that would be a logical place to being searching for evidence of a creator or perhaps evidence indicative of the creator's nature.

But how can we make the jump from an "uncreated creation" to an "uncreated creator"?  Besides, we're already operating in the realm of logical juju.  It seems kind of odd that we're forcing the pegs of our logic to fit into a puzzle we can't understand.  Once you shift the paradigm, everything shifts.  I've never understood the operation of "everything makes sense, just not God."

I wasn't arguing that God could not be the Creator, if God exists.  I was arguing that creative forces are not necessarily God.

[NDN]

Yes it does IMO.

[Boris]

But how can we make the jump from an "uncreated creation" to an "uncreated creator"?  Besides, we're already operating in the realm of logical juju.  It seems kind of odd that we're forcing the pegs of our logic to fit into a puzzle we can't understand.  Once you shift the paradigm, everything shifts.  I've never understood the operation of "everything makes sense, just not God."

I don't quite understand what you're saying. I have never asserted that our reality is an "uncreated creation" nor have I asserted that God is an "uncreated creator," only that "He" is "the creator," should "He" actually exist. I suppose, assuming that God "Himself" is a creation, that the forces that created "Him" could be deemed "God." But then we're getting into even more assumptions about God's characteristics. Although I guess a fair assumption that we could make about God is that "He" is a sentient being. If our creative forces are not (or not the result of) a sentient being, then there is no God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that could be true, but it's difficult to envision creative forces without some sort of synthetic/artificial operation as their source. Because, operating under the assumption that spontaneous creation does not exist within our reality, we'd be merely observing an infinite chain of one event "sparking" another event. Hence why I said earlier that we as a human race should be operating under the assumption that God, with the characteristics of being both sentient and the "creator" exists. With some sort of artificial operation acting as the source, the chain ends. Or rather, it has a beginning. But then we get into the creation or source of that artificial operation. But, that "artificial operation" would be God (since it is artificial and therefore non-natural) and "He" would enshrine us with all the answers. Assuming that "He" is all-knowledgeable and willing to share his knowledge. Hooray for assumptions.

Bottom line is that I don't think we as the human race should be relying upon religious texts of questionable veracity with different interpretations whose effects upon humans could be attributed to the placebo effect (or the Bible or the Koran or the Vedas or the Torah may be literally true. I don't know.) to attain self-actualization when the objective answers to our creation can be scientifically observed and studied.

[Alcon]

I don't quite understand what you're saying. I have never asserted that our reality is an "uncreated creation" nor have I asserted that God is an "uncreated creator," only that "He" is "the creator," should "He" actually exist. I suppose, assuming that God "Himself" is a creation, that the forces that created "Him" could be deemed "God." But then we're getting into even more assumptions about God's characteristics. Although I guess a fair assumption that we could make about God is that "He" is a sentient being. If our creative forces are not (or not the result of) a sentient being, then there is no God.

Sorry   I agree.  My point was essentially twofold:

1. "Uncreated creation" (there being an existence without infinite predecessors) doesn't necessarily demand an "uncreated creator" (self-aware being that effected creation)

2. If an "uncreated creator" exists, it's mighty presumptuous to assume all of our other logical understandings are valid when there is a vast force that we cannot objectively measure in any form.

I guess that could be true, but it's difficult to envision creative forces without some sort of synthetic/artificial operation as their source. Because, operating under the assumption that spontaneous creation does not exist within our reality, we'd be merely observing an infinite chain of one event "sparking" another event.

I'm with you so far...

Hence why I said earlier that we as a human race should be operating under the assumption that God, with the characteristics of being both sentient and the "creator" exists. With some sort of artificial operation acting as the source, the chain ends. Or rather, it has a beginning.

I lose you a little here.

Everything either has a creator, or not everything does.  You can't still hold that everything has a creator if God does not.  You can't have an exception without making the universal become untrue.  So, no logical construct can simultaneously hold that "the universe just happened" is impossible but God is possible.  So, we have to establish why God's existence is more likely than a spontaneous creation.  I've heard no adequate explanation of this.

But then we get into the creation or source of that artificial operation. But, that "artificial operation" would be God (since it is artificial and therefore non-natural) and "He" would enshrine us with all the answers. Assuming that "He" is all-knowledgeable and willing to share his knowledge. Hooray for assumptions.

Well, yes, that's a big assumption.  As I said, an "artificial operation" need not be self-aware, let alone all-knowing.  As for the all-knowing and willing to share his knowledge...I don't think that follows, but I don't see you arguing it does.

Bottom line is that I don't think we as the human race should be relying upon religious texts of questionable veracity with different interpretations whose effects upon humans could be attributed to the placebo effect (or the Bible or the Koran or the Vedas or the Torah may be literally true. I don't know.) to attain self-actualization when the objective answers to our creation can be scientifically observed and studied.

And then I suddenly veer back to agreeing with you (Although individuals are entitled to make their own decisions on this without my judgment...)

[BenNebbich]

yes - somebody must be responsible.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Of course, He does.

[Boris]

1. "Uncreated creation" (there being an existence without infinite predecessors) doesn't necessarily demand an "uncreated creator" (self-aware being that effected creation)

2. If an "uncreated creator" exists, it's mighty presumptuous to assume all of our other logical understandings are valid when there is a vast force that we cannot objectively measure in any form.

OK, now I understand you. Given point #2, I think we must assume that God is not an uncreated creator since most natural phenomena we have observed can be explained via rational and scientific means. If physical or chemical laws were to break down within our reality without any scientific explanation, I guess then it would be fair to assume that God could be an "uncreated creator." Another possible option that intertwines these two paradigms is that God was spontaneously created, yet does not exist within our universe. So therefore, our universe is not bound by the laws that would exist in God's reality. But I guess that would mean for all intents and purposes, God would be non-existent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I gave you a cop-out follow-up in the next paragraph when I stated  that God would enshrine us with the source of the mechanisms behind his creation. Ultimately, I think we as a human race should seek to validate God's existence before we assume specific characteristics of His identity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would only hold true if we assume God is an "uncreated creator" as you previously mentioned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God's existence is more likely because spontaneous creation does not exist within our reality. Mass does not spontaneously generate. Everything that exists, every natural phenomena that occurs can be traced back to a source. If spontaneous creation of our universe actually did occur (so therefore, there is no natural or artificial source behind the big bang), then wouldn't that indicate that spontaneous creation could exist within our universe/reality?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An "artificial operation" may not be self-aware, but it would have to be created by a sentient being(s), or God. It is difficult to fathom an "artificial operation" created by non-sentient being(s) that is responsible for the causation of our reality.

[Alcon]

It's damn late, I may have consumed alcohol, and there's a small chance I have a concussion.

it's on.  Philosophically.

OK, now I understand you. Given point #2, I think we must assume that God is not an uncreated creator since most natural phenomena we have observed can be explained via rational and scientific means. If physical or chemical laws were to break down within our reality without any scientific explanation, I guess then it would be fair to assume that God could be an "uncreated creator."

I tend to agree.  There's a corresponding argument to this--our scientific process is based on collecting empirical evidence, and thus conforms to whatever God creates.  So, the ability to explain natural phenomena isn't necessarily evidence that God doesn't exist.  I should stop arguing devil's advocate and shut up.

I gave you a cop-out follow-up in the next paragraph when I stated  that God would enshrine us with the source of the mechanisms behind his creation. Ultimately, I think we as a human race should seek to validate God's existence before we assume specific characteristics of His identity.

I think I misunderstood your previous statement of this as meaning that we should seek to justify God's existence, not seek to determine it.  Just for the record and all...

That would only hold true if we assume God is an "uncreated creator" as you previously mentioned.

True, I was operating under that construct there.

God's existence is more likely because spontaneous creation does not exist within our reality. Mass does not spontaneously generate. Everything that exists, every natural phenomena that occurs can be traced back to a source. If spontaneous creation of our universe actually did occur (so therefore, there is no natural or artificial source behind the big bang), then wouldn't that indicate that spontaneous creation could exist within our universe/reality?

Problem is, the spontaneous existence of God does not exist within our reality too...the second part of your paragraph applies as much to an uncreated God as an uncreated creation.  I don't see why God should be treated as an exclusionary universal diagnosis.

An "artificial operation" may not be self-aware, but it would have to be created by a sentient being(s), or God. It is difficult to fathom an "artificial operation" created by non-sentient being(s) that is responsible for the causation of our reality.

It's not easy to logically fathom God, either.  I think this argument confuses simplicity with easiness to fit into a logical construct.

None of this will make sense in the morning Have fun

[GMantis]

I don't know, but it's very unlikely.

[Albus Dumbledore]

If she does then she has an odd sense of humor.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I tend to think yes, in some form. 

[MasterJedi]

Yes