Does God Exist?

No it isn't, unless you are so arrogant as to think you are the only one capable of using their critical thinking.

Actually an ad hominem means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than the content of their arguments and has nothing to with how excessive they are.

Perhaps you can understand that accusing others of fallacies can be ad hominem as well.

Let's look at one of them; Argument ad Populum is the logical fallacy that just because something is popular, it is therefore true (or desirable). Yes I was "accused" of this but in actuality this was an example of ad hominem because I had not made any such claim, thus "calling me out" for Argument ad Populum was an attack on me in order to avoid addressing the actual content of my argument.

The statement was make that no one could believe something accept under certain conditions and I merely pointed out that many believe it without those conditions thus those conditions were not necessary for belief. I made no claim that because many believed it was true, I only claimed the stated conditions were not necessary for belief. Thus since I made no call of Argument ad Populum, to say I did is attacking me and not the argument I put forth.

Interestingly I addressed your comments about challenging versus disrespect, by giving my thoughts on the matter and suddenly it is me that is unwilling to be challenged and examine my own thoughts. Yet in this case it seems you are the one unwilling to be challenged and examine your own thoughts.

Offended? Not in the least and I don't care how I'm "received". The only reason I even bring up the name calling is it a waste time and bogs down the actual discussion. But if that is what you want to do and you feel it is the only way you can express yourself, feel free to help yourself.

And of course only atheists have the correct interpretation of the bible, I don't know what I could have been thinking of.

 

OWB: Simply typing words doesn't make your arguments any more logical. This stuff, as in the way we present arguments, is not as subjective as you are trying to make it out to be. However, this does not limit the scope of topics which can be discussed. I don't take issue if people want to discuss the material in a more relaxed manner of discussion but please don't be condesceding to those of us who formulate our viewpoints in a structured way.

I responded to Asmo challenging my beliefs by entertaining the notion of a sentient God for a moment, can you do the same and challenge your beliefs from an atheist perspective?

 

No proof is possible. But I'd suggest looking yourself in the mirror every night.
Love is trouble. Love is light.

 

I would like to stay on topic, but I'm having some difficulties.

See, I want to figure out whether "god" exists, but I'm having trouble understanding what that word means. It seems to mean something different for almost everyone.

There's a lot of people for whom "god" means "an invisible entity named Yaweh who created the universe, created humans in his image, and wishes to save us from what happens if we don't believe in him".

These people, when pressed for details, often keep taking away pieces of the puzzle, saying they are "metaphors", or "misunderstood", until finally they will redefine "god" to mean something akin to "Ultimate Mystery".

So the issue I'm having is that in these discussions, our first step is already a failure, because we cannot agree on what we are discussing. There seems to be an enormous difficulty in defining the concept that we are debating. If we cannot have a solid working definition, then we cannot ascertain whether it exists.

It should also give religious people pause when they continually redefine this concept, as it represents the nidus, the nexus, the alpha and omega of not just their belief system, nay, their very lives and soul; and yet upon the merest pressure from words, this apogee, this apex, this ultimate meaning of all things, can be deftly re-modeled to fit back into whatever nook and cranny it was briefly jostled out of by inquiry.

Quite an interesting situation.

 

If reality is all the same then there is nothing that opposes reality.

There is no non reality. What is not real does not exist. Religions exist and god is invoked. You for example invoke god as delusion and such is your belief or conviction.

 

"Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.
According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit wordhu which means to call upon, invoke, implore."

"Word origin: God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant “invoked one.” The word’s only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures: puru-hutas, “much invoked,” epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra. "

There are some who claim this invocation is not natural but the evidence is that our invocation of authority is fundamental to forming our perceptions. The things we invoke as authority or highest value are fundamental motivators. The virtues around which we organize our lives.

 

Exactly like saying the bible is definitely the word of god, true and desirable, because no other book is so widely available, i.e. popular.

 

Mr. Writer, thedope...have you ever thought about Jakob Boehme's idea of god? If so, any thoughts about the concept you would care to share?

 

Scientific consensus is a popularized authority . But ethically , it is sinful to manipulate consensus .
A respectful spirit is necessary within council . Spirit . Energy within form . Created to relate .

May all of life together be considered a singular form ? Shall it have no voice ? Such a voice
would seemingly have no body . And its relevant sound would be - of a synthesizer , new music ,
and it need not be sentimentally angelic . Coherent dissonance is not unpeaceful . Silence might
just be lonesomeness .

This , a notated zte , makes no sound .

hu
.
.

 

I figured your insistence on using the term 'God' in the way you do had to be based on some archaic etymology. In an unrelated thread, there was a poster who mentioned the term awful originally meant "to inspire awe". Do you find it useful to lean on the archaic etymology for the term 'God' when the concept has shifted so much even to the interpretations of Biblical times, as well as the plethora of Philosophical ideas relating to the term 'God' since?

It seems to me if we were describing, like earlier, the wonders of the universe and/or this crafted creation as 'awful', it would be a significant impediment on understanding.

 

hu huh ? you very well know the persistence of huh , you hu .

 

I think we are best informed to consider or understand all forms and uses of a word then you won't be taken aback by the unfamiliar use of familiar terms.

The thing is that all the words we use are based on some experiential conjugation. This definition is consistent with the human experience which is why the word is uttered in the first place. I compare the etymological definition to the phenomenal evidence and in no instance is this comparison not true. God is that which we invoke. Describing the specific qualities of invoked authority are in addendum to this fundamental. We say god is or is not so or god is this that or the other thing. We also say things like this is the law or this is a police officer or even this is important. On this basis everyone chooses with a guide.

 

Not familiar with him or his positions. On cursory review I am not a theologian.

 

NeonSpectral invoked 'God' and nothing arrived with the username God to answer that invocation. That is failure to this invocation being something tangible. Is relaxxx's description of 'God' being calling upon the superego fair for substitution of 'God' in your estimation?

 

didn't I already point this out?
in order to honestly access the question one needs to strip away all learned/ingrained notions and start fresh.
something even you do not seem to be able to do, Mr. Writer as you continuously fall back on what honestly sounds like Dawkins rhetoric, you're smarter than that.

unfortunately most folks are not able to look that honestly at themselves or root out the why's and wherefore's of their beliefs enough to lay them aside.


but on the topic of God's existence.......

seriously people, this is a question that can not be answered at our current degree of evolution/comprehension/perception so these discussions always devolve into name calling and railing against religious beliefs.
you would think after God only knows how many threads of this ilk over the years have adorned Hip forums, and they always amount to the same hill of bullshit, that the topic is played out.

one also needs to discern between a religions teachings and the actual "conversion experiences" the practitioners may have had.
Personally I don't give two shits about the morons "born" into a faith or those who ascribe to a particular belief system for political reasons, they are all posers.

the teachings offer one level of insight, but what event/experience have caused some to adopt a particular belief system?

In these type of discussions it often gets forgotten that all religions/spiritual practices are based on personal experiences and lacking such experience, one is at a disadvantage when it comes to fully comprehending the other person's motivation for adopting a belief system.

we can argue all decade long about semantics, word root meanings (GB it is good to know the root meanings because they are still the core meaning regardless of how it may have altered over time.), tomes and tales, but devoid of the experience we are still blind men describing an elephant.

hell, even with persuasive experiences it's still a fucking mystery.....LOL

a lot of you will hold to that idea when it applies to psychedelic use, why can you not apply the same idea to religious experience????????????????????

 

I think what whatever authority you invoke is god to you. Neons invocation perceives nothing tangible.

 

http://youtu.be/_Sv82uxsAcc




Due to my device limitations, im just going to post a link or two.

 

http://wondergressive.com/1610-god-fractal-self-replicating-algorith/

 

Uggh... pot calling the kettle black much?