Does God exist? If He/She/It/? does exist, don’t we need to define our terms? Suppose I asked you whether unicorns exist. Odds are, you’d say no. That answer makes sense, but only because there is a generally agreed upon definition of what a “unicorn” is. There is no such agreed upon definition of “God”. Before there is a universally accepted definition of what God is, how can there be any universally acceptable answer to the question of whether God exists?
“Supreme being” is a widely accepted definition.
While I am of the opinion God is an objective reality due to my Christian ‘faith’, the same could be said for followers of the Jewish and Moslem ‘faiths’. Observsers outside of those sects with other religious affiliations quite possibly may think the same. People with doubt about a ‘God’, could regard the afore mentioned as seeing their religions in a subjective vein. Thus, a universally agreed premise of an existing God would fail.
In my view (and humble opinion), “my” God feels there has been enough evidence put forth (through the Bible, witnessed miracles, testamonials of people observing unexplained events and the like) while the rest is filled in with ‘faith’ from our trust in God. If we don’t try to attain and maintain a spiritual elevation that places in God’s Favored Eye without the enabling ‘legup’ from His known Presence, then we would possibly never appreciate the present and the hereafter.
The description of God, or a unicorn for that matter, is not up to us to assign, only to discover. It is, however, up to us to assign a given arrangement of letters to make the word we assign to what is described, within a given language at any rate.
As to the question of the existence of God, since we don’t know whether a omnipotent being exists or not, the best way we can label the object of the question is to call it the Truth, whether a omnipotent being exists or not. Either way, equating Truth with God as a supreme being, or God as the ultimate ideal by which we can achieve fulfillment without divine reward, we would be correct because we have not excluded one or the other until we had certain knowledge.
Felix, I used omnipotent being instead of supreme being because if there is no omnipotent being, there would still be supreme beings, and if you go back in time far enough, that would be viruses or something. And I say beings, plural, because even if someone conquered the people of the Earth, and Earth was the only place in the universe where life existed, his superiority would be completely subjective. In fact, he would almost certainly be supremely evil as implied by the word “conquered”. And what other way could you get ALL humans to agree on any one thing, much less everything.
I once defined God as “A metaphorical understanding of how itself, as this very understanding, sustains its own existence.”
I personally like Anselm’s definition of God : ‘That than which nothing greater can be conveived’. However i also believe Aquinas in sayng that we can never have any agreed definition of God as we as finite beings can never understand the nature of him.
I personally like Anselm’s definition of God : ‘That than which nothing greater can be conveived’. However i also believe Aquinas in sayng that we can never have any agreed definition of God as we as finite beings can never understand the nature of him.
It’s simply put, “Is there a divine of some form?”
For some, this can even sometimes just mean aliens.
I like how Anselm deduces God can be Conceived, and Aquinas ratiocinates a Nature on Him. But I much prefer a good negative theology: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=170262&p=2116971#p2116971
Some near death experiencers describe God as a great glowing life force beaming with love and intelligence, it being related to the core consciousness and aliveness of the universe.
You know despite everyone who has posted here’s eloquaintly put words, You talk as if God is REAL or a FACT. and yet turn around and speak words which imply that there is no way to know or explain him.
If he is “real” he can be defined. because he would “exist” in some form or another. if you agree that he can not be explained or defined. then you must also logically agree that he may not even be real.
If you can not agree that he “may” not be real. then you can not logically agree that he can not be defined or explained.
That’s what we call circular logic. and what I fear many of the human species lack…
Now. If you believe that God is a supreme being of some sort… so be it. But then you must also admit that as a Supreme being he may not be the only one. A supreme being is only defined by what is under him. To me God is not a supreme being at all. He’s a Spiritual Parasite.
As we’ve said before, anything superior to an inferior does not Need anything from that which is beneath it. So if God need’s or want’s your Love, your following or your worship. Then he can not be superior to You even as you are a human. he would actually be inferior to you. Ah but then we come round to the people who need God.
Yes, this brings about the parasitic relationship. God needs humans to love and worship and feed him energy. Humans “believe” (And that’s really the key word there.) that they “need” God. Fortunately it is a Known and proven fact that humans Do NOT need religion nor a God or belief of any kind to function in Life. Therefore humans, do not need “God” but God need’s Humans. Therefore God is an inferior being to a Human. And feeds on them without giving anything in return of value.
That would be the Universe itself. Not a God. When people die what they see and sense is what every metaphysical being see’s and senses. Everything in existence. Which can easily be interpreted as the above consciousness. And what they feel are remnants of their physical flesh that interprets the sensations once they return. As the metaphysical is not made of flesh and lacks the chemical recepticles neccisary to properly facilitate “feeling” and “emotion” what is being felt can only be described as a physical manifestation and has much more to do with desire then actual reality.