God exists

[warpus]

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.

They exist, but you don't need them to live.

 

[Smote]

They exist, but you don't need them to live.

More specifically, they exist as ideas (just as any concept that can be described exists as an idea), but not they do not exist physically.

Some philosophers like to debate about abstract existence on some metaphysical plane, but I think this is absurd.

When debating existence, we generally reserve it for actually existing, not as just an idea, since by that definition everything imaginable exists, because we imagined it.

 

[Phrossack]

I don't know if I'm following the OP's argument, and I'm probably missing something important, but it sounds kinda like he's arguing that:

Aaaand that wins thread.

 

[Naokaukodem]

/!\ To those thinking i'm truly concluding God exists, It's not true. I'm just questionning it. The title of the topic isn't really representative, I should have put an interrogative form to be totally fair.

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.

Granted.

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

When reading me again, I felt also a lack in that correlation. But unlike you, I don't see positiveness in changing our mind after an introspection. I see only the bad things. (whereas there is probably good things too, but at the cost maybe of destructing yourself and basing your new mind on what some other people said) Like you are damned in doubt and inaction, and the arrow of your strongest convictions changing as easily as a weathercock, which I see as much insane as madness. Becoming analytic may be unstoppable.

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?

I must admit that with Browd assertion, this sounds as ending the debate. But who knows ? Maybe Santa Claus is the God of children ? Or their Devil ?

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

Ideally, of course, God would be a machine that can know Himself round without changing constantly. Who knows, maybe God is infinite ? If God is infinite, then He knows Himself round at any given time every'time', considering there's a time where He lives. Or maybe He just don't need to know himself because he is Perfect ? Or if introspection is necesseraly bad, maybe his constitution forbid Him to look in Himself ? Maybe God knows everything but Him ? (what's the need ?) More religiously, maybe God knows everything because He is in everything, and nowhere else to identify ?

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.)

Yes, this is true. But I would argue that Cindy is not the Universe, she is only a part of it. Living beings as a whole, witnesses, are the universe. It's a thing if Cindy can't live, it's another if any mind can't survive. Of course, it's cruel that Cindy lacks a kidney to survive, but she is not the only part of the creation. "You shouldn't feel guilty for victims you can't do anything about".

So I would extend your question as so : "Is something needed for all conscious being necessarily exist ?"

 

[Naokaukodem]

Aaaand that wins thread.

"Sad" is not pertinent here. If you starve, will you be sad ? I think you might more be dead.

 

[warpus]

"Is something needed for all conscious being necessarily exist ?"

Atoms, time, and good luck.

Wait.. for all? Nevermind then, I think I misunderstand the question..

 

[Naokaukodem]

Atoms, time, and good luck.

Wait.. for all? Nevermind then, I think I misunderstand the question..

By "all" (ah, the joice of definitions ) I mean as a whole, like in natural selection where some individuals dies but the life survives. Sure not all species survive therefore what they need doesn't necessarily exist anymore, but if individuals die, it's for a better adaptation of others and then the creation of new species. Life. Then what about conscious beings as a whole ?

 

[Naokaukodem]

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.

Basically what God says to you is what you do. You don't have to photocopy his word and then apply it. You are truly directed by Him, as if an invisible hand would direct your head to show you what you have to see. But of course you can't admit it if the God in question wants to hurt you and is not totally on your side. (hence the misinterpretations of the Devil) So you have to use your mind to determine what is good or bad. Drugs give you a lot of pleasure. Are they good or bad ? By experience you know that they may be bad for you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How about letting people decide for themselves what they need. You feel you need God which makes it exist as far as you're concerned? I feel God doesn't exist, and I'm fine with that as well. Both are fine.

Don't tell me what I need. You don't know me.

 

[Borachio]

/!\ To those thinking i'm truly concluding God exists, It's not true. I'm just questionning it. The title of the topic isn't really representative, I should have put an interrogative form to be totally fair.

Well, that's just sad. I'm really quite disappointed.

 

[warpus]

By "all" (ah, the joice of definitions ) I mean as a whole, like in natural selection where some individuals dies but the life survives. Sure not all species survive therefore what they need doesn't necessarily exist anymore, but if individuals die, it's for a better adaptation of others and then the creation of new species. Life. Then what about conscious beings as a whole ?

I don't really get what you mean, then. But in case I do - no, I don't think that you need God for consciousness to exist.

 

[Borachio]

What about if God is the "Unmanifested", the "Ground of our Being", the "Field of Potentiality", out of which everything that exists, or is abstract, comes?

 

[Harv]

I don't know if I'm following the OP's argument, and I'm probably missing something important, but it sounds kinda like he's arguing that:

Let's see if I understand this cartoon....

If God exists, then I am totally hosed.

I don't want to be totally hosed.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Hmm. That is the opposite conclusion the OP reached.

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

You might think it's a joke.

But I'm examining it very seriously. It's got me worried, for the moment.

 

[Akka]

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

Considering there is plenty of atheists, and they live their lives just fine, your postulate is proved false from the beginning.

 

[Berzerker]

something's responsible for existence, I blame god

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know what to blame.

Except for bad parenting.

 

[Harv]

You might think it's a joke.

But I'm examining it very seriously. It's got me worried, for the moment.

Okay. I have trouble following the argument in the OP because it does not say the condition of being unable to understand oneself due to absence of higher guidance is impossible. So I get:

God exists: We turn to God for guidance and he guides us.

God does not exist: We turn to high priests who make up a God to give us guidance.
OR: We try our best and gradually get better as our self knowledge improves, but we are never perfect.

(Among other possibilities)

So I missed where the proof was in the OP for the existence of God.

Was he trying to say that without God to define good and evil, then how does good and evil get defined?

 

[Domen]

Imagine that the entire universe we know is a mite of dust that lasts for one eyeblink.

That's what we know compared to the totality of existent things in this and other universes.

We try our best and gradually get better as our self knowledge improves, but we are never perfect.

As humanity we still know nothing compared to the totality of things about which knowledge can be collected.

When debating existence, we generally reserve it for actually existing

We as humanity have mostly no idea what actually exists and what doesn't. We know only a fraction of the universe around us.

We can empirically confirm existence of things up to a point to which our very limited minds allow us to deepen knowledge.

You should understand that we humans are beings who are very limited in cognitive abilities. We will never know the truth for sure.

Man - we have not yet even moved beyond our pathetic planet's moon. Humanity is still too pathetic to debate the existence of God.

Once we reach other galactics, maybe we will know something more - but that will still be just a small fraction of the entirety.

 

[Leonel]

God existing or not suits me fine. It's his/her followers I have great issue with.