What do you mean when you say God "exists"?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Rather than asking whether or not God exists, I instead want to focus on the epistemological criteria that we use to determine whether things in general exist and how that applies to God when someone says God "exists".

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

I also think that the criteria should avoid the "Everything Exists" scenario. The criteria should avoid absurd conclusions such as the idea that mermaids, trolls, and snorglezonkers exist.

There are various ways we can define how something "exists".

Category #1: The most common definition would be a "physical existence" in the sense that it is composed of atoms, molecules, and/or energy. It can be seen, touched, tasted, felt, or heard unambiguously by any observer. This includes things like dogs, houses, mailmen, bacteria, the Sun, etc. This is scientific materialism.

Category #2: There is another class of things which are mental objects of the human imagination such as mermaids, trolls, your billionaire self, etc. Everyone can immediately recognize a drawing of a mermaid and identify it as such. These things "exist" in some sense of the word since they are things which we imagine. However, in general, we say that these things do not exist even though they have some sort of subjective existence within the human mind. We do this because otherwise we end up with an "Everything Exists" scenario. If mental objects of the human imagination are included in the category of "existing things", then the whole concept of existence goes out the window.

Category #3: Ideas or abstractions which manifest themselves in actions. This includes things like love, justice, hate, peace. Many people might say that these things "exist" while recognizing that their "existence" is fundamentally different than "physical existence". Love and justice may or may not exist but regardless of where your beliefs stand on this, I think we are all in agreement that love and justice are not the same as dogs and houses. I would argue that these abstractions do not exist in an essential way but are rather contingent upon interactions between things that physically exist. These abstractions manifest themselves in verbs and actions. For example, suppose you were shown three photos: 1) a picture of an empty room; 2) a picture of a room with two people standing in it and 3) a picture of a room with two smiling people holding hands and/or hugging. You are then asked to identify the room with love in it. Everyone picks Room #3 because it shows physical things (i.e. humans) interacting in a way which we have ascribed the word "love" to.


If someone can think of a fourth class of things, please let me know and I will add it here.

My question is: Which category does God belong to?

People say God "exists" but what criteria are they using to define this?

Most theists say that God is not physical, so he is not Category 1.
Most theists say that God is not purely imaginary, so he is not Category 2.
Most theists would probably say that God is not only an idea or abstraction manifested in actions, so he is not Category 3. (Although perhaps some deists or philosophers would be comfortable putting God in Category 3?....)

So then, how exactly does God exist? What category of existence does he fall into?

Many theists argue that God exists because they feel that he does. This is often veiled in Christian-ese metaphorical language such as, "God came into my heart" or some other such thing. This may be compelling subjective evidence, however it fails the criteria because it leads to an "Everything Exists" scenario. If "feelings" are the primary criteria, then if someone "feels" like Cthulu exists, then their claim has the exact same legitimacy as yours. It is well-documented that the mind can lead to illusory subjective feelings.

Some posters might say, "He belongs in none of the categories because he is his own category." This also fails the "Everything Exists" criteria because someone could use the exact same argument to claim that anything exists including mermaids or Cthulu.

Some posters might say something along the lines of, "The Bible says so". They may communicate this via posting various verses or other such things. This unfortunately does not answer the question unless the Bible happens to state clearly that God belongs in one of the three categories above.

Some posters might say, "There is a fourth category of things which exist spiritually." If so, I would like to hear more about how this class of things "exists" in some sense and what other entities exist in this other category. And, more importantly, how we can distinguish this class of existence from Category #2. Is there any method for sorting things which spiritually exist out from the things which exist only as mental constructs of the imagination?

Looking forward to the responses.

 

[Radagast]

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

Doesn't work. I believe the tree outside my window exists because I can see it. I believe atoms exist for different reasons.

And I'm not very impressed by your "Here is a list of categories that doesn't include God. Oh, look, it doesn't include God!"

 

[singpeace]

Rather than asking whether or not God exists, I instead want to focus on the epistemological criteria that we use to determine whether things in general exist and how that applies to God when someone says God "exists".

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

I also think that the criteria should avoid the "Everything Exists" scenario. The criteria should avoid absurd conclusions such as the idea that mermaids, trolls, and snorglezonkers exist.

There are various ways we can define how something "exists".

Category #1: The most common definition would be a "physical existence" in the sense that it is composed of atoms, molecules, and/or energy. It can be seen, touched, tasted, felt, or heard unambiguously by any observer. This includes things like dogs, houses, mailmen, bacteria, the Sun, etc. This is scientific materialism.

Category #2: There is another class of things which are mental objects of the human imagination such as mermaids, trolls, your billionaire self, etc. Everyone can immediately recognize a drawing of a mermaid and identify it as such. These things "exist" in some sense of the word since they are things which we imagine. However, in general, we say that these things do not exist even though they have some sort of subjective existence within the human mind. We do this because otherwise we end up with an "Everything Exists" scenario. If mental objects of the human imagination are included in the category of "existing things", then the whole concept of existence goes out the window.

Category #3: Ideas or abstractions which manifest themselves in actions. This includes things like love, justice, hate, peace. Many people might say that these things "exist" while recognizing that their "existence" is fundamentally different than "physical existence". Love and justice may or may not exist but regardless of where your beliefs stand on this, I think we are all in agreement that love and justice are not the same as dogs and houses. I would argue that these abstractions do not exist in an essential way but are rather contingent upon interactions between things that physically exist. These abstractions manifest themselves in verbs and actions. For example, suppose you were shown three photos: 1) a picture of an empty room; 2) a picture of a room with two people standing in it and 3) a picture of a room with two smiling people holding hands and/or hugging. You are then asked to identify the room with love in it. Everyone picks Room #3 because it shows physical things (i.e. humans) interacting in a way which we have ascribed the word "love" to.


If someone can think of a fourth class of things, please let me know and I will add it here.

My question is: Which category does God belong to?

People say God "exists" but what criteria are they using to define this?

Most theists say that God is not physical, so he is not Category 1.
Most theists say that God is not purely imaginary, so he is not Category 2.
Most theists would probably say that God is not only an idea or abstraction manifested in actions, so he is not Category 3. (Although perhaps some deists or philosophers would be comfortable putting God in Category 3?....)

So then, how exactly does God exist? What category of existence does he fall into?

Many theists argue that God exists because they feel that he does. This is often veiled in Christian-ese metaphorical language such as, "God came into my heart" or some other such thing. This may be compelling subjective evidence, however it fails the criteria because it leads to an "Everything Exists" scenario. If "feelings" are the primary criteria, then if someone "feels" like Cthulu exists, then their claim has the exact same legitimacy as yours. It is well-documented that the mind can lead to illusory subjective feelings.

Some posters might say, "He belongs in none of the categories because he is his own category." This also fails the "Everything Exists" criteria because someone could use the exact same argument to claim that anything exists including mermaids or Cthulu.

Some posters might say something along the lines of, "The Bible says so". They may communicate this via posting various verses or other such things. This unfortunately does not answer the question unless the Bible happens to state clearly that God belongs in one of the three categories above.

Some posters might say, "There is a fourth category of things which exist spiritually." If so, I would like to hear more about how this class of things "exists" in some sense and what other entities exist in this other category. And, more importantly, how we can distinguish this class of existence from Category #2. Is there any method for sorting things which spiritually exist out from the things which exist only as mental constructs of the imagination?

Looking forward to the responses.

Class 4: Design or Code

If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed but that it had a designer. Our measurement of time is not based on clocks or watches, but on the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.

If I found an encoded message, I would most likely need a cryptographer to help break the code. One would naturally assume that there is an intelligent sender of the message who created the code. DNA is a “code” far more complex than anything man can create. The complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code.

Basic proof God exists is what He has made.
“For since the creation of the world God's existence has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1).

 

[HTacianas]

Rather than asking whether or not God exists, I instead want to focus on the epistemological criteria that we use to determine whether things in general exist and how that applies to God when someone says God "exists".

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

I also think that the criteria should avoid the "Everything Exists" scenario. The criteria should avoid absurd conclusions such as the idea that mermaids, trolls, and snorglezonkers exist.

There are various ways we can define how something "exists".

Category #1: The most common definition would be a "physical existence" in the sense that it is composed of atoms, molecules, and/or energy. It can be seen, touched, tasted, felt, or heard unambiguously by any observer. This includes things like dogs, houses, mailmen, bacteria, the Sun, etc. This is scientific materialism.

Category #2: There is another class of things which are mental objects of the human imagination such as mermaids, trolls, your billionaire self, etc. Everyone can immediately recognize a drawing of a mermaid and identify it as such. These things "exist" in some sense of the word since they are things which we imagine. However, in general, we say that these things do not exist even though they have some sort of subjective existence within the human mind. We do this because otherwise we end up with an "Everything Exists" scenario. If mental objects of the human imagination are included in the category of "existing things", then the whole concept of existence goes out the window.

Category #3: Ideas or abstractions which manifest themselves in actions. This includes things like love, justice, hate, peace. Many people might say that these things "exist" while recognizing that their "existence" is fundamentally different than "physical existence". Love and justice may or may not exist but regardless of where your beliefs stand on this, I think we are all in agreement that love and justice are not the same as dogs and houses. I would argue that these abstractions do not exist in an essential way but are rather contingent upon interactions between things that physically exist. These abstractions manifest themselves in verbs and actions. For example, suppose you were shown three photos: 1) a picture of an empty room; 2) a picture of a room with two people standing in it and 3) a picture of a room with two smiling people holding hands and/or hugging. You are then asked to identify the room with love in it. Everyone picks Room #3 because it shows physical things (i.e. humans) interacting in a way which we have ascribed the word "love" to.


If someone can think of a fourth class of things, please let me know and I will add it here.

My question is: Which category does God belong to?

People say God "exists" but what criteria are they using to define this?

Most theists say that God is not physical, so he is not Category 1.
Most theists say that God is not purely imaginary, so he is not Category 2.
Most theists would probably say that God is not only an idea or abstraction manifested in actions, so he is not Category 3. (Although perhaps some deists or philosophers would be comfortable putting God in Category 3?....)

So then, how exactly does God exist? What category of existence does he fall into?

Many theists argue that God exists because they feel that he does. This is often veiled in Christian-ese metaphorical language such as, "God came into my heart" or some other such thing. This may be compelling subjective evidence, however it fails the criteria because it leads to an "Everything Exists" scenario. If "feelings" are the primary criteria, then if someone "feels" like Cthulu exists, then their claim has the exact same legitimacy as yours. It is well-documented that the mind can lead to illusory subjective feelings.

Some posters might say, "He belongs in none of the categories because he is his own category." This also fails the "Everything Exists" criteria because someone could use the exact same argument to claim that anything exists including mermaids or Cthulu.

Some posters might say something along the lines of, "The Bible says so". They may communicate this via posting various verses or other such things. This unfortunately does not answer the question unless the Bible happens to state clearly that God belongs in one of the three categories above.

Some posters might say, "There is a fourth category of things which exist spiritually." If so, I would like to hear more about how this class of things "exists" in some sense and what other entities exist in this other category. And, more importantly, how we can distinguish this class of existence from Category #2. Is there any method for sorting things which spiritually exist out from the things which exist only as mental constructs of the imagination?

Looking forward to the responses.

I think there may well be a number 4 in the world. For example, years ago my mother was at work one morning and she get a headache so bad she had to leave work and go home. She did not suffer from headaches in the past or since. She was not in the habit of leaving work for no reason and that was the only time it's ever happened.

At the same time, my brother was at work and was hit in the head and knocked out by a backhoe. Question is, were the two related? The answer is:

1. No. They are totally unrelated and merely coincidence.
2. Yes. They were related but no one knows the explanation for it.

If we answer 1., above, there's nothing else to talk about. But if we answer 2., above, even if only hypothetically, what category does it fit into?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To exist means to 'stand forth'. That is what the Latin means. Something exists by being differentiated from something else, to 'stand forth' from it. If something is not differentiated, then it isn't something itself. Everything is just Red, until I start naming it Maroon or Burgundy or whatever, to facilely try and explain what I mean.

So God 'exists' by being differentiated from us or His creation. So criteria used to define something in creation, to differentiate it from something else, would not apply to God per defitionem. From the Christian view, God is the Ground of Being, I AM that I AM. This is why the mediaeval Scholastics considered the statement "God does not exist" to be illogical, as something only exists in differentiation from God. God is the 'property' that allows existence. If there is only one thing, then there would be nothing to differentiate against it. This is the old idea of the 'cosmic egg' from which all emerges, but ultimately as categories are pealed back, would subsume reality again - without God of course.

Things exist because we can differentiate them from God, otherwise we end up with the monistic unity of the Pantheist. This is as true for our idea of God's nature, as well. The real nature remains ineffable, no matter what metaphor we throw at it. So I consider all your criteria flawed. God exists because everything else is not-God. That I can conceive God as Other, although remember even the Conception of God is not really God either, but a human abstraction of Him - 'the Tao that can be named is not the Tao'-style thing, here.

 

[Tom 1]

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

I don't think this really works. If you want an actual definition, I think you'd need to break it down a bit - first of all there's the difference between God's existence, which, if he does exist, is claimed by the bible to be self evident and eternal, and the existence of the idea of God, and the existence of God as experienced by people. I'm not sure how you'd go about fitting all of that into one, catch-all definition that could stand up to much scrutiny.

If you are talking about the existence of the Christian God, then you'd need to break down all of the different ways in which that existence is described and manifested, to see if each of those different ways needs it own category or if they add up to a whole. For example God claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, and also that he is is eternal - not just very, very, very old, but infinite in his existence, with no end and no beginning. So that could give you - does God exist because he began 'everything' and will end 'everything'? Does he then exist as a necessary cause? If God is, as in he is infinite, the great 'I Am', has an existence outside of anything we can really understand, then is he in his own category, or is it sufficient for us to use speculative categories to define something that is so far outside of our understanding? And so on.

If you're talking about the idea and the subjective experience of God then you've got other categories that would need to be defined from a human perspective - experience, imagination, and a whole lot of other things you'd need to think about.

 

[46AND2]

Rather than asking whether or not God exists, I instead want to focus on the epistemological criteria that we use to determine whether things in general exist and how that applies to God when someone says God "exists".

My personal view is that the criteria should be consistent. If A exists, then we should be able to use the same criteria to determine whether B exists. If B fails the criteria, then B does not exist.

I also think that the criteria should avoid the "Everything Exists" scenario. The criteria should avoid absurd conclusions such as the idea that mermaids, trolls, and snorglezonkers exist.

There are various ways we can define how something "exists".

Category #1: The most common definition would be a "physical existence" in the sense that it is composed of atoms, molecules, and/or energy. It can be seen, touched, tasted, felt, or heard unambiguously by any observer. This includes things like dogs, houses, mailmen, bacteria, the Sun, etc. This is scientific materialism.

Category #2: There is another class of things which are mental objects of the human imagination such as mermaids, trolls, your billionaire self, etc. Everyone can immediately recognize a drawing of a mermaid and identify it as such. These things "exist" in some sense of the word since they are things which we imagine. However, in general, we say that these things do not exist even though they have some sort of subjective existence within the human mind. We do this because otherwise we end up with an "Everything Exists" scenario. If mental objects of the human imagination are included in the category of "existing things", then the whole concept of existence goes out the window.

Category #3: Ideas or abstractions which manifest themselves in actions. This includes things like love, justice, hate, peace. Many people might say that these things "exist" while recognizing that their "existence" is fundamentally different than "physical existence". Love and justice may or may not exist but regardless of where your beliefs stand on this, I think we are all in agreement that love and justice are not the same as dogs and houses. I would argue that these abstractions do not exist in an essential way but are rather contingent upon interactions between things that physically exist. These abstractions manifest themselves in verbs and actions. For example, suppose you were shown three photos: 1) a picture of an empty room; 2) a picture of a room with two people standing in it and 3) a picture of a room with two smiling people holding hands and/or hugging. You are then asked to identify the room with love in it. Everyone picks Room #3 because it shows physical things (i.e. humans) interacting in a way which we have ascribed the word "love" to.


If someone can think of a fourth class of things, please let me know and I will add it here.

My question is: Which category does God belong to?

People say God "exists" but what criteria are they using to define this?

Most theists say that God is not physical, so he is not Category 1.
Most theists say that God is not purely imaginary, so he is not Category 2.
Most theists would probably say that God is not only an idea or abstraction manifested in actions, so he is not Category 3. (Although perhaps some deists or philosophers would be comfortable putting God in Category 3?....)

So then, how exactly does God exist? What category of existence does he fall into?

Many theists argue that God exists because they feel that he does. This is often veiled in Christian-ese metaphorical language such as, "God came into my heart" or some other such thing. This may be compelling subjective evidence, however it fails the criteria because it leads to an "Everything Exists" scenario. If "feelings" are the primary criteria, then if someone "feels" like Cthulu exists, then their claim has the exact same legitimacy as yours. It is well-documented that the mind can lead to illusory subjective feelings.

Some posters might say, "He belongs in none of the categories because he is his own category." This also fails the "Everything Exists" criteria because someone could use the exact same argument to claim that anything exists including mermaids or Cthulu.

Some posters might say something along the lines of, "The Bible says so". They may communicate this via posting various verses or other such things. This unfortunately does not answer the question unless the Bible happens to state clearly that God belongs in one of the three categories above.

Some posters might say, "There is a fourth category of things which exist spiritually." If so, I would like to hear more about how this class of things "exists" in some sense and what other entities exist in this other category. And, more importantly, how we can distinguish this class of existence from Category #2. Is there any method for sorting things which spiritually exist out from the things which exist only as mental constructs of the imagination?

Looking forward to the responses.

You must remember, too, that many Christians do not claim to KNOW that god exists, merely that they believe he does.

I would think that for the ones who claim to know that he exists, it would be either #1 or #3, or some sort of combination of the two. My best friend believes that god physically touched him on his shoulder.

Additionally, there are people who think that something exists due to #1, having observed it themselves, of which most people are strongly skeptical. The fact that they cannot replicate that experience for another person does not make it less real in their mind.

 

[SolomonVII]

Reality contains a transcendent component. At the exact moment of the Big Bang, the laws governing physics did not exist. The cause of the universe lies outside of reality, as we define real existence.
And yet here we are. If we are real, transcendence must be real too.
God fundamentally is understood as transcendence.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Doesn't work. I believe the tree outside my window exists because I can see it. I believe atoms exist for different reasons.

You can see atoms using an electron microscope. People have now manipulated atoms into specific shapes and even spelled out sentences with individual atoms or wrote a code for a song using individual atoms.

You can see atoms. You can see trees.

And I'm not very impressed by your "Here is a list of categories that doesn't include God. Oh, look, it doesn't include God!"

Ad hom. Noted. I no longer have time for these things on CF.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Class 4: Design or Code

If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed but that it had a designer. Our measurement of time is not based on clocks or watches, but on the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.

If I found an encoded message, I would most likely need a cryptographer to help break the code. One would naturally assume that there is an intelligent sender of the message who created the code. DNA is a “code” far more complex than anything man can create. The complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code.

Basic proof God exists is what He has made.
“For since the creation of the world God's existence has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1).

I appreciate this answer and I will add an edit to my original post. I think I could broaden your answer to basically say that we have another criteria for determining if something exists based on the effects it has on other things that exist.

For example, if you hear a thud in another room, you assume that "something" that "exists" caused that thud. If you see the effect of something on the universe, then we assume that something existed to provide a cause to that effect.

This type of "existence" always deals with the past. You see an effect today, and you look for the cause of it from yesterday. But we cannot directly access the past, so this is always relying on indirect evidence.

There are many things in the universe that could suggest design by some creator in the distant past (e.g. God, a super-intelligent alien, etc.).

However, most theists argue that God is present here and now. So we should not need to rely on indirect, ancient evidence. It would be like someone saying, "Hey, look, I will prove to you that the Moon exists by showing you this moon rock that people brought back from the moon in 1969." It seems like a silly piece of evidence since the moon has a very obvious existence on most nights that can be witnessed in the here and now. Similarly, if dinosaurs existed now, we wouldn't be needing to dig through scraps of old bones to try to explain them. If God exists now then we shouldn't need to rely on ancient indirect evidence. Especially when that evidence can be explained via other means and may change as new evidence comes in. Be wary of God of the Gaps.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think there may well be a number 4 in the world. For example, years ago my mother was at work one morning and she get a headache so bad she had to leave work and go home. She did not suffer from headaches in the past or since. She was not in the habit of leaving work for no reason and that was the only time it's ever happened.

At the same time, my brother was at work and was hit in the head and knocked out by a backhoe. Question is, were the two related? The answer is:

1. No. They are totally unrelated and merely coincidence.
2. Yes. They were related but no one knows the explanation for it.

If we answer 1., above, there's nothing else to talk about. But if we answer 2., above, even if only hypothetically, what category does it fit into?

(emphasis mine)

That's a big if, first of all. I see no reason why this is not just a coincidence.

If yes, then the most honest answer is that we don't know the explanation and any offers of "explanations" are pure speculation.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

To exist means to 'stand forth'. That is what the Latin means. Something exists by being differentiated from something else, to 'stand forth' from it. If something is not differentiated, then it isn't something itself. Everything is just Red, until I start naming it Maroon or Burgundy or whatever, to facilely try and explain what I mean.

So God 'exists' by being differentiated from us or His creation. So criteria used to define something in creation, to differentiate it from something else, would not apply to God per defitionem. From the Christian view, God is the Ground of Being, I AM that I AM. This is why the mediaeval Scholastics considered the statement "God does not exist" to be illogical, as something only exists in differentiation from God. God is the 'property' that allows existence. If there is only one thing, then there would be nothing to differentiate against it. This is the old idea of the 'cosmic egg' from which all emerges, but ultimately as categories are pealed back, would subsume reality again - without God of course.

Things exist because we can differentiate them from God, otherwise we end up with the monistic unity of the Pantheist. This is as true for our idea of God's nature, as well. The real nature remains ineffable, no matter what metaphor we throw at it. So I consider all your criteria flawed. God exists because everything else is not-God. That I can conceive God as Other, although remember even the Conception of God is not really God either, but a human abstraction of Him - 'the Tao that can be named is not the Tao'-style thing, here.

This sounds like an "Everything Exists" scenario. Your argument argues that God exists because everything else is not-God.

But someone could argue that Cthulu exists because everything else is not-Cthulu. Or mermaids exist because everything else is not-mermaids. Or apples exist because everything else is not-apples. Or my dog Pete exists because everything else is not my dog Pete.

Sorry, but it sounds a little absurd to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You can see atoms using an electron microscope. People have now manipulated atoms into specific shapes and even spelled out sentences with individual atoms or wrote a code for a song using individual atoms.

You can see atoms. You can see trees.



Ad hom. Noted. I no longer have time for these things on CF.

It's not an ad hom ... if there is such a thing as "virtue epistemology" [...and I think there is!]

I mean, Hey! Y'know! If ethics are required for doing science (and they most definitely are!), then I see no reason why our surmisings about the ethical or moral quality of another person while he/she appropriates logic or does other analyses, even epistemological analyses, would be somehow "off the table."

In your case, the ad hom wouldn't apply IF......................you simply made an honest mistake in doing what @Radagast seems to imply that you did.

But if you did it, thinking you could "engineer" a win, then yes, the ad hom sticks!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You must remember, too, that many Christians do not claim to KNOW that god exists, merely that they believe he does.

Fair enough. But why would they believe he does? Everyone has a reason for their beliefs. And not all reasons are valid or consistent. Someone's belief in the tooth fairy might be very real for them, but the reality of their feeling has no bearing on the actual existence of the tooth fairy.

I would think that for the ones who claim to know that he exists, it would be either #1 or #3, or some sort of combination of the two. My best friend believes that god physically touched him on his shoulder.

Cool stuff. Do you know any more details about this experience your friend had?

Additionally, there are people who think that something exists due to #1, having observed it themselves, of which most people are strongly skeptical. The fact that they cannot replicate that experience for another person does not make it less real in their mind.

Yes this is true. But in this case its a slippery slope between delusion and reality. If we used this criteria for existence for other things, we would be forced to believe that all sorts of crazy stuff exists. It would also make pretty much all religions equally valid.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Reality contains a transcendent component. At the exact moment of the Big Bang, the laws governing physics did not exist. The cause of the universe lies outside of reality, as we define real existence.
And yet here we are. If we are real, transcendence must be real too.
God fundamentally is understood as transcendence.

Thanks for the reply.

Like I said to an earlier poster, your argument from the Big Bang may be valid in determining that something transcendent caused the Big Bang billions of years ago.

But most theists argue that God exists here and now. So I don't see why you need to reach billions of years into the past to dig up some potential idea that something transcendent exists. Like I said to the other poster, if dinosaurs roamed the Earth today, we wouldn't need palaeontologists digging up old bones to piece together a limited patchwork picture of what they looked like. Furthermore, it seems like a big leap to argue that that transcendent thing is God (or more specifically, the Christian God). In my view, that transcendent cause could be many things and is perhaps outside the realm of knowable things by humans.

So if God exists here and now what kind of existence is that? What is transcendant existence and how can it be distinguished from Category #2 (imaginary things)?

 

[46AND2]

Fair enough. But why would they believe he does? Everyone has a reason for their beliefs. And not all reasons are valid or consistent. Someone's belief in the tooth fairy might be very real for them, but the reality of their feeling has no bearing on the actual existence of the tooth fairy.



Cool stuff. Do you know any more details about this experience your friend had?

Not a whole lot...we've learned to stay away from religion discussions. lol. He was broken; rock bottom. Knelt down and prayed and is fully convinced that god touched him on the shoulder. We were childhood friends, and lost touch for quite some time. His conversion (and mine) happened during the years we were not in touch.

Yes this is true. But in this case its a slippery slope between delusion and reality. If we used this criteria for existence for other things, we would be forced to believe that all sorts of crazy stuff exists. It would also make pretty much all religions equally valid.

I don't disagree. However, how can I definitively say that such people did not experience what they believe they did? My friend's experience is not mine, and though I may suspect that his emotional state caused him to believe something happened which really didn't, the simple fact is that I didn't sense what he sensed. And even if I had, maybe it would not have been convincing to me.

But while it is a legit observation that the fact that he is convinced that it is true doesn't make it absolutely so...it is absolutely convincing for him. I'm not advocating using this criteria as a means to define truth, but I understand 2nd hand how unambiguously convincing it is for some people who have experienced "something" like that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'd say that the occurrence of an event is not the same thing as a thing existing. An event is the change in state for a thing or things. "Did a change occur" is different than "does a thing exist".

In the context of the OP, a coincidence or experience is not a thing but something that happened to a thing. If we are talking about existence, we might be interested in the entity that effected the change.

Unless the OP disagrees, I'd say that what people's experiences (unless "of a thing", e.g., seeing an elephant is an experience) are Off Topic.

YMMV

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Usually when non-believers say "You can't see God, you can't feel God, you can't whatever God" I remind them that even science said in the "natural" world, no they cannot prove He exists. But then they follow up by saying ifs He's supernatural then they have no way to prove He exists. Which is why they say they can't claim He doesn't exist then. Not until they have a way to examine the supernatural world.

 

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for the reply.

Like I said to an earlier poster, your argument from the Big Bang may be valid in determining that something transcendent caused the Big Bang billions of years ago.

But most theists argue that God exists here and now. So I don't see why you need to reach billions of years into the past to dig up some potential idea that something transcendent exists. Like I said to the other poster, if dinosaurs roamed the Earth today, we wouldn't need palaeontologists digging up old bones to piece together a limited patchwork picture of what they looked like. Furthermore, it seems like a big leap to argue that that transcendent thing is God (or more specifically, the Christian God). In my view, that transcendent cause could be many things and is perhaps outside the realm of knowable things by humans.

So if God exists here and now what kind of existence is that? What is transcendant existence and how can it be distinguished from Category #2 (imaginary things)?

It is not a matter of time. It is a matter of the very nature of the universe lying outside of itself. Transcendence exists because it is part of what constitutes the reality of the world, as science reveals it to be.
Any description of the nature of reality that does not accept transcendance as a feature of reality rejects the science of the fundamental nature of the universe.
My argument was not that transcendence was God, or Christian God.
My argument is that transcendence is a fundamental feature of the universe. The universe does not exist without it.
For his part God has always been considered to be transcendent.
Since the world is real, and the reality of the space time continuum emerges out of transcendence, this is how it can be distinguished from imagination.
Transcendence, by definition, is beyond any when. The beginnings of time itself lie in transcendence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Transcendence doesn't exist. It is not a 'thing.'