Ask not "Does God exist?" Ask "Why is God not different than He is?"

[FatalHeart]

No. Assume if He existed He would care enough to respect your questions, then pose the questions to Him. If you don't get an answer, go your merry way, but you have to be patient and understanding just as you would to another person you earnestly wish to get to know. Why? Because it is the reality of a person you are seeking, so seek it as though it is a person with their own ideas and desires. It really is the only way to know. After all, if I was making a scientific hypothesis I would create tests, not just one, not just do it once, not just be satisfied with one conclusion.

 

[tonybeer]

If I was trying to get to know someone I'd probably try and pick someone I knew to be real first. Else I might sound a bit crazy.

 

[FatalHeart]

Appearing crazy and being crazy are two different things, after all, in his pursuit of truth Columbus sailed out and discovered a new world -I know that is not the whole story, give me creative licence like when you ask me to explain God. Hehe. Anyway, I'm talking about being open to the possibility in your heart and testing it in some way. It won't hurt you to try if it is an important thing to test. It's not like I am asking you to do much beyond being open to it.

 

[jayem]

Yes, exactly, there is a parallel with other illusions.

Imagine asking not "Does Santa exist?" but "Why does Santa never give different gifts than he does?"

I have done exactly that. As a mental exercise, I have postulated a God with quite different characteristics than those typically described. And the alternative God of my thought experiment makes far more sense than the traditional Biblical God. But it would violate the blasphemy rules for me to post the details. PM me if you're interested.

 

[tonybeer]

Appearing crazy and being crazy are two different things, after all, in his pursuit of truth Columbus sailed out and discovered a new world -I know that is not the whole story, give me creative licence like when you ask me to explain God. Hehe. Anyway, I'm talking about being open to the possibility in your heart and testing it in some way. It won't hurt you to try if it is an important thing to test. It's not like I am asking you to do much beyond being open to it.

I'm not sure what you mean. What am I meant to be doing?

Even if my brain did experience something, how would I know it was God? Even if I started flying around the room how would I know that was God?

ps nothing to do with this, but it's a common myth that Columbus and others thought the Earth was flat. In fact people knew it was round more than 2000 years ago.

 

[Gottservant]

I still don't know what you mean. Asking "Does Santa exist", will lead to the truth, and the other question to circles. But what is your point? What do you mean "direct the bias to something constructive"?

I mean you are loading the bias of your question "does God exist" against the authority of God to determine whether He Himself is able to say He exists. You are a man, you don't have the authority to question whether God exists, all you have the authority to do is question when He exists is He legitimately consistent with other times you have thought He may exist!

You have to build a memory of God here. Aint no point in saying "I have seen evidence of God but is that evidence thoughtful?" Evidence is evidence and someone had to think something for it to be there. Fact is, if someone insists something is real, even when you don't believe it, it's time to change your line of questioning. "Is what someone is saying consistent?" ask that and you are starting to break the problem down, now you are getting somewhere.

 

[Gottservant]

It is not theists that believe God exists,

Yes, it is. That's precisely what 'theist' means.

Actually, it is by definition the last thing on a believer's mind.

The most relevant thing to a believer is that they remember God.

Asking a believer if they believe God exists is rather like talking to someone who has just bought a new car and saying "But does it have keys?"

 

[Tiberius]

Hi there!

This is a simple twist on an old thought, designed to shake people out of complacency about the nature of God. The thought is typically "I know who God is, I know what He is, but does He really exist?" This is arrogance. First you are assuming all sorts of information about God, who you later go on to question, then you are questioning Him, as if all the stuff you thought about Him is irrelevant.

Either be objective and do not attribute anything to God in the first place, or find another way to question Him. I have suggested the latter, another way to question Him. This way is to simply say "I take for granted all that I do about God, who He is, where He is, what He does, but now because I am human and compelled to doubt, from time to time, I will question why God is not different to all that I have taken for granted about Him? I will ask why am I not fundamentally wrong about all I have assumed can be attributed to God, if I must be wrong about anything?" This is healthy doubt, because it can be answered by the exercise of the will, more generally, and not just the intellect, as is the case with the question of the existence of God.

Once you have determined for yourself, in the absence of needless distractions about whether someone else thinks what you do, why what you know does not change, you will see that the question about whether God exists is actually a much more circumstantial question than you might first expect. Questioning whether God exists, hinges on the self-importance of the questioner being able to renounce God's Godness as if that is somehow the choice of the questioner and not the choice of God.

There are many things you know about God, all of them come from Heaven, if they are from Him. They tell you about what to expect of God, what His nature is, how His imagination works, these are important learnings, they are not to be neglected. If you can keep from mixing these things with the opinions of others, but trust that the God within you is able to reveal the truth to you that there is about his nature and the nature of His love for you, you will find that it is actually very easy to trust Him whether or not He exists...

...that actually, whether God exists or not is the last thing on your mind.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse.

If you ask, "Why is God not different than He is?", then you are starting with the assumption that God exists. Basing things on assumptions is not good, and should be avoided wherever possible. Asking "Does God exist?" is a much better starting point. Once you have established whether he exists or not, then you can start asking why he isn't different than He is.

 

[Gottservant]

You are putting the cart in front of the horse.

If you ask, "Why is God not different than He is?", then you are starting with the assumption that God exists. Basing things on assumptions is not good, and should be avoided wherever possible. Asking "Does God exist?" is a much better starting point. Once you have established whether he exists or not, then you can start asking why he isn't different than He is.

Well, I suppose one way of accounting for the motivation for asking such a question is to propose that it means "God exists" or "it is assumed God exists", but this is highly presumptuous. It could simply mean "God is relevant", as in "God is relevant to someone, in some way", meaning "The Name God holds some power or significance for someone, in some way". You would have to agree that is much closer to the truth than simply proposing to answer the question "Does God exist?", don't you think?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I suppose one way of accounting for the motivation for asking such a question is to propose that it means "God exists" or "it is assumed God exists", but this is highly presumptuous. It could simply mean "God is relevant", as in "God is relevant to someone, in some way", meaning "The Name God holds some power or significance for someone, in some way". You would have to agree that is much closer to the truth than simply proposing to answer the question "Does God exist?", don't you think?

Only if you really mean "Does the IDEA of God exists?"

Then we can answer yes to it, but we would still be only ever talking about the idea of god, which (let's face it) is different for everyone, and thus our discussion could never reach an objective truth.

If you wanted to reach an objective truth, then you'd have to show that God existed outside of people's subjective opinions, and thus was a real entity - meaning you'd HAVE to start off with asking "Does God exist" before you start asking why he isn't something different.

 

[Gottservant]

Only if you really mean "Does the IDEA of God exists?"

An idea is enough. You can do a good work for someone on the basis of an idea alone. You don't need more than that.

If you wanted to reach an objective truth, then you'd have to show that God existed outside of people's subjective opinions, and thus was a real entity - meaning you'd HAVE to start off with asking "Does God exist" before you start asking why he isn't something different.

Yes, but how are you going to find Him if He does exist? Not by questioning whether or not He exists. It's something called the benefit of the doubt and if you don't have to own anything or go anywhere or prove anything or etc to find God, why wouldn't you give the benefit of the doubt? Sounds miserly to me.

 

[Tiberius]

An idea is enough. You can do a good work for someone on the basis of an idea alone. You don't need more than that.

True, but an idea of something doesn't mean that the thing itself exists in reality.

Or are you saying that there might not be a real god, even though the idea of god is real?

Yes, but how are you going to find Him if He does exist? Not by questioning whether or not He exists.

I find that asking if something exists and then investigating it is an excellent way to find if something exists. It's certainly the only way I know of to be sure of knowing for sure.

It's something called the benefit of the doubt and if you don't have to own anything or go anywhere or prove anything or etc to find God, why wouldn't you give the benefit of the doubt? Sounds miserly to me.

In other words, just assume that it is true and treat it as fact?

 

[bricklayer]

One can reason the necessity of a necessary-being.
One can even reason so far as to recognize that the God of the bible uniquely fulfills the omni implications of a necessary being.
However, the faith by which we are saved involves the entire person (intellect, emotion and will) not just the intellect.
The "heart of man" (intellect-emotion-will) is dead; it is separated from Life.
No amount of human reasoning can bring a man from death to life intellectually, emotionally or willfully.
Faith is a gift unto life.

 

[Tiberius]

One can reason the necessity of a necessary-being.

I've never seen such an argument that holds up to any scrutiny.

 

[bricklayer]

I've never seen such an argument that holds up to any scrutiny.

OK, here goes -

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
No particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time.
Therefore, the matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant and exhaustive change.
Anything that is subject to change is subject; it is not-sovereign. It is not-necessary; it is contingent.
The existence of the contingent begs the existence of the necessary.
If contingent-being exists, then necessary-being must exist.
Being exists; therefore, necessary-being must exist.

 

[Tiberius]

First of all, it looks like you are getting your science from Star Trek or Dr Who. Have you got sources to support the claims you are making?

Secondly, it seems that your argument is based on the argument from incredulity.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'd agree with the ignostic criticism: if you are admitting in any way that God has undefinable traits, you are conceding any significance of divine revelation. If you assert God does have definable traits, we have the issue of qualifying them to death so as to not contradict basic rationality and logic that Christians like Aquinas acknowledged as Platonists or Aristotelians, etc.

I don't ask about God in a presumed manner, unless that's presumed within the specific discussion, but that's fairly rare. I usually would qualify that God is rarely agreed upon as to the qualities it possesses, especially in specific elaborations.

 

[bricklayer]

First of all, it looks like you are getting your science from Star Trek or Dr Who. Have you got sources to support the claims you are making?

Secondly, it seems that your argument is based on the argument from incredulity.

You need sources to assure you that matter has mass? or that space is position relative to matter? or that time is also relative to matter? (note matter's special relativity)

I would love to expand on any point, but the entire point of a philosophical proof is the elemental nature of its points. The points should approach self-evidence.

A philosophical proof does not need to be exhaustive. For example, matter being that with mass is not an exhaustive description of matter. However, matter's mass is indispensable to any other description of matter. Matter's mass is elemental to matter.

A scientific proof needs to be exhaustive; and of course, that would include the elemental. The exhaustive would not be exhaustive without the elemental, but the elemental nature of things is unaffected by an exhaustive (scientific) description of them.

At what point do you take umbrage?

 

[Tiberius]

You need sources to assure you that matter has mass? or that space is position relative to matter? or that time is also relative to matter? (note matter's special relativity)

There are particles out there that have no mass.

I've never heard anyone define space as "position relative to mass" before. Can you support this definition with a scientific resource?

And you didn't claim that time was relative to matter. Your exact words were "Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum."

I would love to expand on any point, but the entire point of a philosophical proof is the elemental nature of its points. The points should approach self-evidence.

And therein lies the flaw. You can come up with anything and call it self evident, but unless there's support, it means nothing.

A philosophical proof does not need to be exhaustive. For example, matter being that with mass is not an exhaustive description of matter. However, matter's mass is indispensable to any other description of matter. Matter's mass is elemental to matter.

Why shouldn't it?

A scientific proof needs to be exhaustive; and of course, that would include the elemental. The exhaustive would not be exhaustive without the elemental, but the elemental nature of things is unaffected by an exhaustive (scientific) description of them.

I much prefer the scientific proof because it is testable.

 

[Gottservant]

True, but an idea of something doesn't mean that the thing itself exists in reality.

It just means that if strength can be added to it, it is probable that it will (exist). Because probability is cumulative and strongly probable, is strongly cumulative.

Or are you saying that there might not be a real god, even though the idea of god is real?

The doubt is certainly real, the question is is the doubt relevant to the good that believing in God does?

I find that asking if something exists and then investigating it is an excellent way to find if something exists. It's certainly the only way I know of to be sure of knowing for sure.

Except that what you discover is that your preconceived notion of something exists. But you never really know if you have discovered something, as it is. To discover something exists as it is you must accept that your preconceived notions as to the nature of something are irrelevant.

In other words, just assume that it is true and treat it as fact?

I didn't say assume it is true, unless by that you mean provisionally. I said, "skip that, focus on something really challenging". You will find getting God to change is far harder, than getting God not to exist.

I said, getting God to change is far harder, than getting God not to exist.