God exists

[Harv]

How about God exists by definition. The question is whether you believe God created Man, or Man created God.

 

[timtofly]

That's always the thing isn't it.

An atheist says: God doesn't exist, and he needs to prove this statement conclusively, if he can't, the statement can be dismissed. The atheist needs to demomstrate the lack of possibility of God existing.
A Theist says: God exists, and the statement needs to be respected because of faith of the theist. The theist can ignore the possibility of God not existing.

If the Theist is asking for faith in the concept, then it is just a concept. That is the part about the OP as TF pointed out that God is more than just a notion of humans, or even a human need.

One should think outside the human box and not focus on the humanity aspect of God. Humans and the universe can be jerks, if they do not line up with one's own internal thought processes or ability to function in life. On the flip side, if one has the sense that all is well with their life, they do not need any outside help getting through life. I have yet to see any human operate without some influence or means outside their own physical body. They may have a well adjusted mental state, but that only comes from maintaining a physical state conducive to such mental ability.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How about God exists by definition. The question is whether you believe God created Man, or Man created God.

Spiritualwise God is a man and man is a God. Man is a God in making (the evolution aint over) and God in process of its manifestation is man. They both exist by definition...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well what kind of evidence do you want?

Transferable evidence. In other words, evidence which we both can look at and draw similar results.

 

[El_Machinae]

I suggest an alternative:

You need to have an entity that is purely malevolent. Let's dub it "Satan" because why not. You need Satan in order to live correctly, because His existence is showing you the proper direction: Away from Him.

You know, I find this to be a quick summary of my moral philosophy. Now, I have no need to personify 'evil', but I often define 'good' as being the direction away from evil.

When making a moral calculus, I'm often not striving to do 'the most good', but to actually do 'the least evil'.

 

[Gigaz]

While thats partially true itsnt going to work in absolute terms. Satan as a malevolent/destructive entity cant function outside of frame of the Absolute and if destruction was All there wouldnt be anything to ponder about. Moreso as a matter of rule you cant run forward while looking backward -- you are bound to run astray or break your legs...

The whole world functions outside the frame of an Absolute because any property makes only sense in comparison with another property.
Also, I might buy a rear-view mirror for not breaking my legs.

 

[bhavv]

I'm really trying to make sense of the OP, but its just a load of pseudo rabble hogwash quackery.

 

[Lohrenswald]

You actually make some really interesting points Naokaukodem, but I'm afraid you do it from an entierly wrong perspective and reach entierly wrong conclusions.

I will try to proove here that we NEED to believe in God.

First of all, that doesn't mean god have to exist. I can perfectly imagine the human psyche built in a way that necessitates a believe in something that doesn't actually exist, like god (whatever that is). Indeed, this seems somewhat easy to conclude based on what more you say.

Indeed, people need to do something of their lives, just because they live and that the outcome can be very distant. Would that only be to kill time. So they are trying to do things. Will they be pleased to do these things on the end ? Will they succeed ?

I could again problematisise the necessity of an existentialist drive, but it seems like a relatively common thing, I feel like that often too (though sometimes I just roll with things).
Although this is probably more common in places where basic necessities like food and safety is somewhat secured. This wouldn't be the case for the earliest humans. Maybe I'm wrong after all.
But anyway, I think you have hit the nail quite good with this assesment, but I'm even more entrigued by the following:

The thing, is that they can't manipulate themselves : to manipulate itself, one have to know itself. However this is technically totally impossible. Why ?

* First off, if you try to know yourself, you will accumulate data about yourself, right ? That data will become a part of yourself. However, in order to know yourself, you should know that data also. Creating some other data. That would should know. Etc... so the quest of self knowledge, is purely infinite therefore never reached.

* When you learn things about yourself, it is unsure about what we will do next. Let's say you have a revelation about yourself. How will you react ? Nothing tells you you will react in the same way you would have react if you wouldn't have had this revelation. So the processus of knowing yourself may change drastically the way you behave. And, I'm talking by experience, you probably will act the opposed way in reaction, as to contradict determinism.

So not only you can't really, technically know yourself round, but you may change your mind in the processus, which is endless, much for your mind.

I don't know enough about human psychology (or for that matter any psychology) to validate this data paradox, but all this is very interesting.
I am often perplexed by people who seem to understand their desires so completely. I don't really know what I should do, or how I should do it, and this may be partially because of the reasons you mention.
I'm afraid I can't think of much to expand upon what you have said, for it's pretty straight forward the way you have put it. In the process of gathering information about yourself, you change yourslelf. It might be realising your attitude is not what you'd like, or a more fundamental "angst" about realising your position in the world.

It's very interesting that you bring up determinism. When people are confronted with the idea that free will doesn't exist, many alter themself. They could think that because they don't have free will all they do is meaningless, and then start to act as if their actions didn't have consequenses, or that since these consequences don't matter, they should be able to do whatever.

Frankly, a really interesting topic, but then:

So, you need top have a *SUPERIOR* entity that guide you. By "superior", I mean an entity that is above you, see you all, and wish the best for you, never defecting.

Why? Maybe the psyche is a self-perpetuating machine? I frankly see no correlation between your premises and this conclusion.

That's why I'm saying that we need God in order to live correctly.

The question of the existence of God still remain, but hey, if we need God, why wouldn't He exist ? Is something needed necessarily exist ?

If He doesn't, what kind of poor aberations would we be ?

This is unfourtunately becoming as bad as Descartes' god evidence. You asssert that for some reason, human existentialism necessites a god.

I can imagine Santa Claus (and I can't find meaning in life without him)
Thusly Santa Claus must be able to exist
Thusly Santa Claus must exist

not really emressive, eh?

And doesn't your points apply to god as well? He must alredy know about himself to learn about himself, thusly changing him?

 

[bhavv]

Oh, so basically the OP boils down to 'God is real because he just is.'

 

[Lohrenswald]

I think he tries to explain that it would be absurd for god not to exist, because of the human condition, but he doesn't really succeed.

Still, as pointed out, interesting points.

 

[Browd]

From the OP: "... we need God in order to live correctly. The question of the existence of God still remain, but hey, if we need God, why wouldn't He exist ?"

So, to the OP, God exists because we need God to exist, which is a poor argument, IMO.

In fairness, he does go on to ask "Is something needed necessarily exist ?", but there are ample examples demonstrating that the answer to that question is "no" (e.g., Cindy needs a new kidney to live, but there are no tissue matches, etc.)

 

[NetGear]

As terrible as ops argument is, I'm tempted to agree with him that we need god. Heck maybe even god exists.

What now? Who is this god. What is he telling us. How do you know? You said you don't believe in religion. Why. Why should I believe what you believe.

My point is even if I were to acquiesce to your argument (no matter how badI think it is) it doesn't get me any where.

 

[warpus]

It gets you to a conclusion that you need to believe in something that is all powerful and that helps you get through life.

I don't think I need such a thing - I don't need no imaginary crutches to get through life. I put my faith in my friends and family. and in myself.

That's what you really need. Good friends, good family connections, and a belief in yourself.

 

[Borachio]

What do you do when you've no good friends, no family connections, and are losing belief in yourself?

 

[Naokaukodem]

But poeplez have not much idea of God outside religions...

I wouldn't say that. Why do people enter religions ? Be them animism, polytheism, monotheism or whatever the man created. For me, they are no different in the principle that says that forces guide the people, and that the people can't live totally by themselves. (imagery of the "self-made man") Maybe the monotheism is what sums up best this theory, because we can identifiate ourselves as one entity to another one, with similar feelings and unilateral preoccupations.

Btw I am not saying religions are totally wrong it just rather that the rationale religious people adopt is quite foreign to materialistic and critically thinking individuals and appears as contrary to their experience...

True. But my "God" doesn't do miracles if that's what you're thinking about. By the way, I think it's obvious now that if I talk about the Christian God, it's by education, culture or reminiscence. I probably think some traits of God are christian, some others islamic, some others judaic, etc... but does it really matters ? For example, why thinking about His appearence when nobody is tied to stare Him in front of ? Mickael Ange may have express the Christian belief that He made humanity to His image, so that we look like Him, but obviously such a pragmatism isn't viable for a SF lover such as myself, because if God looks like humans, it means that it does not look like ETs, therefore that human are the One people just as the Jews think they are the One people. which from my side is a total nonsense.

So to precise what is God and what is Humanity, I would say rather SUPERIOR ENTITY and CONSCIOUS BEINGS.

I am doing something with my life. Why exactly does a god need to be part of it?

I wish I could say the same. Maybe you are just lucky.

I suggest an alternative:

You need to have an entity that is purely malevolent. Let's dub it "Satan" because why not. You need Satan in order to live correctly, because His existence is showing you the proper direction: Away from Him.

The thing is you can know you are near the Evil when it's too late. So you couldn't go away in time. It may be the purpose of religions, morale and systemic ways of thinking...

You dont need to believe in God. However you need some kind of faith as such to perpetuate your life. It just our psychological set up. The wise ones then dont feel the need to limit their faith hence some of them believe in God.

I rather see FAITH as indivisible from GOD. But you can call God your lucky star, as long as your lucky star is not just here at night and can hear you, otherwise have a GREAT importance for you, which does not seem the case of the expression "lucky star". By the way "lucky star" seems more like "helping" you sporadically, whereas God is actively guiding you strongly everytime and for your own good and the good of others.

Yeah this is pretty much rad.

Ah ah ah, if there's no errors (which i don't really think), OF COURSE it is !!!! (or maybe not - totally noob about theology here. After all no need of psychological proof to show we are not masters of our destinies, the world around is enough eloquent about this ) Anyway, i got interested !

Of course, Spiderman. He watches over me and gives me advice about life.

He doesn't like being called God though. I think you should stop doing that.

LOL, it's more interesting than you look like to think. Indeed, others are the people that can know you totally and objectively without changing their judgement for as much. But are they reliable ? Like, your pseudo sounds like a super Vilain one to me.

By the past, Heroes had their importance. Cult of Personnality existed. I totally think that Stalin replaced God with himself. But let's face it, Stalin is not a God. Would you give him the keys of your life if he would still be alive ? Would you give the most intimate keys of your life to your friends ? To your parents ? Make them decide EVERYTHING about your life ?

How about God exists by definition. The question is whether you believe God created Man, or Man created God.

I'm thinking that God created us with lacks. Therefore our ability to know we need Him. So God created Man who created God with the evidence of Life. This constitutes a psychological link with Him. The "Holy Spirit" of the Christians.

 

[NetGear]

Maybe my point wasn't clear. Even if I admit that I need a powerful being telling me what to do and guide me thru life, it doesn't get me anywhere if I don't know what he is or what he is saying. I don't agree with op and I agree with what you said. But you still have to decide which god to believe and decide on what he is trying to say. If you have that abilitu why not just cut out the middleman.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I do not need any convincing that it would be good for me to believe in God.
Trouble is, I can not plan to do so. I can not really decide to so. At least not when one is 'trapped' in the stage of mind I am. Because I am too acutely ware of the not self-serving but 'objective' arguments to doubt the existence of God.
So I am afraid the fortune of the believe in God is reserved to those lucky anough to never venture into that mind state - while the rest of us is 'doomed' to live without the blessing of believing in God's blessing.
No matter how well you may argue that I should believe in God. I am damned. Just - according to how see it - in the here and now rather than in some after life.

Whoa I adore this comic capture. Saved.

 

[warpus]

What do you do when you've no good friends, no family connections, and are losing belief in yourself?

Then you hope that God exists, I guess. Or you try to improve.

LOL, it's more interesting than you look like to think. Indeed, others are the people that can know you totally and objectively without changing their judgement for as much. But are they reliable ? Like, your pseudo sounds like a super Vilain one to me.

By the past, Heroes had their importance. Cult of Personnality existed. I totally think that Stalin replaced God with himself. But let's face it, Stalin is not a God. Would you give him the keys of your life if he would still be alive ? Would you give the most intimate keys of your life to your friends ? To your parents ? Make them decide EVERYTHING about your life ?

Well, I was of course kidding.

You don't need a superhero in your life. Some people might, but most don't.

 

[Borachio]

Well, if most people don't need them why are they all-pervasive?

We have the hyperrealism of batman, superman, commander whatever, captain hungary, james bond, jesus, santa, all sorts.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The question of the existence of God still remain, but hey, if we need God, why wouldn't He exist ? Is something needed necessarily exist ?

If I (somehow) get stuck out in the middle of the arctic completely naked, I will need clothing, shelter and food. My needing these things in no way means that the universe will provide them.