Do Gods Exist?

[pood]

Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion.

So I'm going to use a specific definition of god. It is perhaps the most general, and least restrictive definition possible for the concept: a god is any entity that creates, administrates, or otherwise controls a Universe. As something made of a more "foundational material".

In turn a Universe is "any closed system of isolated and mathematically defined behaviors for all action except direct intercession by a god."

Now by THIS definition, I'm a god. In fact by that definition MANY humans are gods! Pretty much everyone who owns a computer is trivially close to being a god if they aren't already.

For instance, the space in a simulation is made of molecules of real stuff. I can point to the real structures in real space and really you what structures of that stuff create the secondary system of space. I happen to be made of the same fundamental material that the subspace I created happens to be made of.

That's what makes something a God. But it's pretty apparent that I only have powers insofar as manipulating the space I am in gives me power to understand or change the subspace or even stop it's sub-time. It doesn't give me power to understand the unobserved future of the subspace.

LIke, humans study singularities of light by studying singularities of sound.

Why would we not study gods of "this space as a subspace" by studying gods of subspaces of this space?

It won't tell us absolutes or certainties, but it will give us far more useful intuitions if only because it's useful to consider it from our perspective anyway... Getting knowledge that generalizes "up" is just a bonus.

The above would more closely fit a loose definition of “god” than would Oxford No. 3 and No. 4, the latter of which I had frankly never heard of.

Words have multiple meanings and are elastic. They are conventions that change over time. There are even some words that carry opposite and mutually exclusive meanings, like the word “sanction.” In one context it means one thing, and in a different context it means exactly the opposite.

It has been speculated that one day we may be able to manipulate physics sufficiently to create a baby universe that breaks off from our own. If that universe were later to develop intelligent aliens, could we be considered “gods” to them? Perhaps in a deistic sense, as they would know nothing of us, we nothing of them, and there would be no way for them and us to interact, but we literally would have created their universe and hence indirectly them.

The upshot is, I wonder how long RIS intends to play these pointless word games? He must know that most and probably all atheists here, when discussing “god,” are discussing “god” in the context of Oxford No. 1 and No. 2. And since he says he is a biblical believer, I must assume that he believes in “god” in the sense of Oxford No. 1. So perhaps he will now drop the word games and defend his belief in Oxford No. 1, or, if he does not believe in Oxford No. 1, drop his claim that he is a biblical believer.

 

[pood]

Unless, of course, he wants to play more word games, like, “I’m a biblical believer in the sense that the bible exists, and since you all must believe that the bible exists, then you are all biblical believers just like me, nyah nyah nyah!”

 

[lostone]

The real issue we are discussing is about supernatural beings and we all know that. Whether or not we label them 'gods' is mere semantics. What's more, we are discussing the existence or non-existence of a specific supernatural creature, the Biblical God.

 

[pood]

The real issue we are discussing is about supernatural beings and we all know that. Whether or not we label them 'gods' is mere semantics. What's more, we are discussing the existence or non-existence of a specific supernatural creature, the Biblical God.

Exactly. So perhaps RIS would like to address that as opposed to the ruler of North Korea.

 

[RIS]

Huh? I said nothing about any examples.

My definition (which btw I have since refined to remove an unwarranted question begging) is general - it applies to all gods.

Here it is as revised:

A god is a powerful entity that can do things that are impossible for humans to do, but can be lobbied by humans to act on their behalf.​

That such entities are only found in stories is not a part of the definition, and I shouldn't have included it - it is a conclusion, and not a part of the definition.

I am working this stuff out in real-time here; Gods are not important to me, so I don't waste a lot of time thinking about them, until and unless asked to do so.

I've studied other religions and other gods for 30 years now because I'm interested in other perspectives on the subject. A subject which I find interesting. When I ask various theists about their perception and perspective on the subject I get pretty much the same response as I do with atheist, excpet for it's slightly broader, much less dogmatic than what I get with atheists. Unlike the various forms theists adhere to, the atheist is insistant that a god can only be their definition. Magic sky tyrant, doesn't exist. I think this is because atheism is really only a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic culture within the society they live.

Nothing wrong with that, if fact I'm very empethetic to that admirable and necessary response. That's one of the reasons I always gravitate towards atheists rather than theists. The nature of the response I see from atheist I don't like, though I do feel the need for it. The purpose behind the response.

When I ask an atheist for a personal definition of god I get the exclusive example, a model of the Biblical "God" Jehovah. To an atheist there is that singular concept of a god, which I don't understand because how could there be gods if there is only that one example?

 

[RIS]

Unless, of course, he wants to play more word games, like, “I’m a biblical believer in the sense that the bible exists, and since you all must believe that the bible exists, then you are all biblical believers just like me, nyah nyah nyah!”

You should maybe try breaking away from the us vs. them mentality. I wonder what sort of effect that has on the lives of you and others of the same worldview.

 

[lostone]

Then why did you summarily dismiss my mention of Brahma? And also of Boltzmann brains, as hypothetical gods?

 

[RIS]

Exactly. So perhaps RIS would like to address that as opposed to the ruler of North Korea.

I already have. Repeatedly. Some gods are supernatural, some are not. All gods exist in some sense, but they don't have to literally exist. Kim Jong Un is a god that demonstrably exists in a literal sense. Easily proven. Jehovah isn't like that. I believe Un exists as a god, but not my god. I believe Jehovah exists, but not demonstrably. Un is mortal, Jah isn't. Un is material, Jah isn't. It is only my belief that Jah exists, and irrelevant and understandable to me that most people don't believe Jah exists.

 

[RIS]

The real issue we are discussing is about supernatural beings and we all know that.

Who said that? I didn't say that in the OP. One of my criticisms of the definition of atheism is gods.

Oxford: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It's ambiguous at least. I believe in the existence of US presidents, but I don't believe in them. I don't trust them. Jesus said you could move mountains with faith. It was a hyperbolic statement, but it's literally true as well. They were polygots, but their primary Aramaic but also Latin. The Latin word credit means believer. From which comes the English credible, creed, discredit, incredible, credulous, credo, accredited, credence, credentials, creditor etc. A mining company uses credit to literally move mountains.

This is why atheists can't accept the normal definition of the word god. Because they not only don't believe (trust) in God, they deny the existence of them. And not just God, but gods. What's the difference if there can only be one example?

Whether or not we label them 'gods' is mere semantics.

I've often made the suggestion that atheists set aside the semantics of gods and simply concentrate on the supernatural because really what they are saying is that the supernatural doesn't exist, or if they are more accurate and concise, the supernatural doesn't demonstrably exist.

I don't know if I would agree entirely with that either because supernatural simply means not understood or testable by science and you have to ask yourself if there is anything else fiting that description. Lots of things. Plus, things that were once thought to be supernatural are no longer thougt to be. Giant squid and whales were once thought of as supernatural as mermaids.

What's more, we are discussing the existence or non-existence of a specific supernatural creature, the Biblical God.

In this thread? We are talking about all gods.

 

[RIS]

Then why did you summarily dismiss my mention of Brahma? And also of Boltzmann brains, as hypothetical gods?

Who me? I didn't dismiss any of that.

 

[Elixir]

Tearing down semantic barriers does not confer existence upon the non- existent.
“God”, Gods and gods included.

I don’t believe in the existence of god, God or gods. The FACT that N Koreans think Kim is a god, coupled with my belief that Kim exists, does not alter my beliefs at all. The fact that N Koreans think Kim is a god in no way enhances the likelihood that some tri-Omni Creator dude exists.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you define the word “gods” to include things that do exist then yes “gods” exist. Now what? You’ve won some trivial semantic point with at best some vague philosophical value.

 

[pood]

Huh? I said nothing about any examples.

My definition (which btw I have since refined to remove an unwarranted question begging) is general - it applies to all gods.

Here it is as revised:

A god is a powerful entity that can do things that are impossible for humans to do, but can be lobbied by humans to act on their behalf.​

That such entities are only found in stories is not a part of the definition, and I shouldn't have included it - it is a conclusion, and not a part of the definition.

I am working this stuff out in real-time here; Gods are not important to me, so I don't waste a lot of time thinking about them, until and unless asked to do so.

I've studied other religions and other gods for 30 years now because I'm interested in other perspectives on the subject. A subject which I find interesting. When I ask various theists about their perception and perspective on the subject I get pretty much the same response as I do with atheist, excpet for it's slightly broader, much less dogmatic than what I get with atheists. Unlike the various forms theists adhere to, the atheist is insistant that a god can only be their definition. Magic sky tyrant, doesn't exist. I think this is because atheism is really only a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic culture within the society they live.

Nothing wrong with that, if fact I'm very empethetic to that admirable and necessary response. That's one of the reasons I always gravitate towards atheists rather than theists. The nature of the response I see from atheist I don't like, though I do feel the need for it. The purpose behind the response.

When I ask an atheist for a personal definition of god I get the exclusive example, a model of the Biblical "God" Jehovah. To an atheist there is that singular concept of a god, which I don't understand because how could there be gods if there is only that one example?

Sigh.

But we don’t say that. We know perfectly well that there are tons of different supernatural god concepts, all of which lack supporting evidence.

The reason the biblical god comes up here is because you said you were a biblical believer, with the clear implication that you believe in the biblical god. Not, believe that the concept exists, because it certainly does, but believe that the concept refers to something real. Do you believe that or not?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Speaking of semantics, there is a whole context both historical, implied, and carried over from the path of getting to the website, its creators, owners, clicks to this thread:
IIDB (what is IIDB and its mission) --> Religion (what does religion mean in the context of IIDB and the purpose of the forum) --> Existence of God(s) (what senses of the word God are valid semantically in context provided) -->

So, if I make a post saying "Arnold Schwarzenegger is the god of bodybuilding" it both takes the meanings of God out of the context implied to ordinary people who get semantics and is an equivocation between the out-of-context sense of "god" and the implied meaning of "God(s)" from that context.

This is so obvious that a reasonable person would wonder if they are being pranked.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is so obvious that a reasonable person would wonder if we are being pranked.

perhaps said poster can then go back to a religious discussion board and claim victory for getting an atheist to agree that “gods exist”. Woohoo!

 

[RIS]

If you define the word “gods” to include things that do exist then yes “gods” exist. Now what? You’ve won some trivial semantic point with at best some vague philosophical value.

I haven't won anything. I only presented the data and it was rejected. That certainly isn't anything new to me. I'm here to discuss a subject of interest to me with people that disagree with me. If I had a reasonable discussion on that I would win something.

What now? Tell me what you think and why. I already know that about myself. I don't mind discussing how we disagree up to a point then it gets boring. He said she said. Tit for tat. Chasing our tails.

The fact that gods exist doesn't suggest all gods do. Just because someone knows God or gods exist, demons for example, doesn't mean they worship them. The point is constantly pounded into the ground but isn't reasonable to me because it's moot from an atheistic perspective.

There are two kinds of atheists. Apathetic and militant. The point is moot for both. The former because they just don't care, and the latter because it isn't about belief in gods, it's about believers in gods. Generally speaking, I think the definition of atheism is nonsensical. I think Hitchin's popularization; anti-theist, is much more reasonable.

That's why it's difficult to have this discussion. That's why @pood jumped on me when I set foot in the tank, and others followed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you define the word “gods” to include things that do exist then yes “gods” exist. Now what? You’ve won some trivial semantic point with at best some vague philosophical value.

I haven't won anything. I only presented the data and it was rejected.

I personally have not rejected it. Since you defined “gods” to include things that exist I have agreed that “gods exist”.

 

[pood]

Unless, of course, he wants to play more word games, like, “I’m a biblical believer in the sense that the bible exists, and since you all must believe that the bible exists, then you are all biblical believers just like me, nyah nyah nyah!”

You should maybe try breaking away from the us vs. them mentality. I wonder what sort of effect that has on the lives of you and others of the same worldview.

In what sense does the above address what you quoted?

 

[RIS]

Speaking of semantics, there is a whole context both historical, implied, and carried over from the path of getting to the website, its creators, owners, clicks to this thread:
IIDB (what is IIDB and its mission) --> Religion (what does religion mean in the context of IIDB and the purpose of the forum) --> Existence of God(s) (what senses of the word God are valid semantically in context provided) -->

So, if I make a post saying "Arnold Schwarzenegger is the god of bodybuilding" it both takes the meanings of God out of the context implied to ordinary people who get semantics and is an equivocation between the out-of-context sense of "god" and the implied meaning of "God(s)" from that context.

This is so obvious that a reasonable person would wonder if they are being pranked.

That makes no sense to me. There is no such equivocation being made, certainly not by me. Earlier I used the analogy of Superman. Men exist. Superman is a man that doesn't exist. That doesn't mean men don't exist or that because Superman is a man he must exist.

 

[pood]

Exactly. So perhaps RIS would like to address that as opposed to the ruler of North Korea.

I already have. Repeatedly. Some gods are supernatural, some are not. All gods exist in some sense, but they don't have to literally exist. Kim Jong Un is a god that demonstrably exists in a literal sense. Easily proven. Jehovah isn't like that. I believe Un exists as a god, but not my god. I believe Jehovah exists, but not demonstrably. Un is mortal, Jah isn't. Un is material, Jah isn't. It is only my belief that Jah exists, and irrelevant and understandable to me that most people don't believe Jah exists.

Just more word games. Gets boring.

Kim Jong Un is NOT a god in the sense of Oxford 1 and 2. The sense of 3 and 4 is idiomatic and colloquial. If I say, “Money is my god,” it does NOT mean that money created the world and exists supernaturally. Or do you think that it does?