God exists, and nothing more can be said about the matter. Even saying that implies and suggests too much. The craving to add more to this is the beginning of disintegration.
One must define exist in order to progress that along in my opinion. Does God exist as an idea? As a supreme being? One cannot certainly argue that God exists as an idea, much like the notion of love can be said to exist as an idea. But can it go beyond that to prove itself to be a certifiable being? Or is God much like love a firing of neurochemicals facilitated by man?
Gargoyles exist……’nough said… 
Best way to state a ‘truth’ and an opinion and not have to justify it or argue on its behalfis the one noted.
The end-o-da-line strategy from the weak and desperate.
I think I understand Xanderman… Intuitively, at least.
But is disintegration inevitable?
-Thirst
Eh, Xanderman. I know what you mean, but I think that’s a sort of surrendering to philosophical weakness, or at least, giving a spiritual significance to shirking our duty as philosophers.
We all know that historically, philosophers do very well when criticizing the establishment, pointing out faults, and in general saying “Here is the way things are”. They go to crap when they actually start proposing a solution to all the problems they’ve identified. I think we all recognize that this isn’t because there’s something wrong or bad about proposing solutions, but just that it’s a heck of a lot harder than pointing out problems.
We take this to religion, and we see that broad, general statements (like pointing out the faults of alternatives to theism) are easy. We see that saying anything definite about God is a lot harder- a lot more controversial. But like so many other things in religious philosophy, I just see this as an extension of the way we think about other matters. I think it would be a mistake to enshrine this difficulty as a metaphysical statement.
xanderman: God exists, and nothing more can be said about the matter. Even saying that implies and suggests too much."
K: I suggest otherwise. God doesn’t exist and nothing
more can be said. I see no evidence of any kind that suggest
god exist. I don’t see any kind of proof that god exist.
And occam’s razor suggest that whenever two theories
exist, the chances are the simpler one is right which then
suggest that the natural state theory, evolution big bang
science is the simpler one and thus the correct one.
Kropotkin
This reads like some on-the-road-to-Damascus-type conversion situation or some weird drug induced state-ment!
What do you mean by, “God?”
Obviousy, your, “God,” exists for you, (or so you’d have us believe!) but I’m interested to know what your, “God,” amounts to!
Please define, “God!”
Regards,
Peter
That is absolutely correct!
If you believe in God, that is.
At the same time.
If ‘God exists, and nothing more can be said about the matter.’ why did you start this post?
Most of you missed the point…
-Thirst4Xander
A sufficient silence can unfetter even the greatest repose.
Here then is a beginning of disintegration or what we might call fragmentation.
To say that God exists is also to say that God doesn’t non-exist. (While even to say that God both exists and simultaneously doesn’t exist is only completely satisfying to those who can completely accept mysticism.)
Why call for a definition? Can we define existence? Can we draw the line of demarcation between existence and non-existence? What is the use of such a line? Will that line last for a thousand years?
We can easily describe existence for whatever purpose we might have in mind, but we can only presume to define it. Any definition we might give it will last only for as long as it is found to be the most useful. Then when other needs arise the definition may easily be discarded in favor of a more useful one.
Any seeking after definitions does show the direction of our aim, which is beyond change.
Why does this question matter? Why must we seek to constrain existence? It matters because God matters. That is to say it matters because what people believe about God matters. Now when it come to a foundational question like, “Does God Exist?†I can agree more readily with those who say that God does exist rather than with those who say God doesn’t exist. Beyond that I cannot readily agree with what anyone says, therfore: God exists, nothing more can be said.
Yet we do go on speaking. What are some of the motivations we have to go on speaking about this subject?
Satori, you seem to be aiming for a reductive materialism. You aim right toward the chemical process.
Satyr, you aim at the method of presentation itself. You find it hollow, and then toss off a personal insult.
Thirst, you just might agree, but you lack surety. As for the matter of disintegration, I hope this post has given you more info about that.
Uccisore, you see the challenge, and you say, “Yes.†You have a fighting spirit. You also want to support your brother in arms and try to encourage them also. You have enough practicality to see the windmills, yet enough love to charge anyway.
Kropotkin, you bring more reductive materialism and futher present a verificationalist perspective.
Peter, you take a linguistic turn. I hear you asking something like, “To what are you referring?â€
Ravencry4all, you take it down to a different kind of word puzzle.
To see what people would say.
Xanderman,
It appears that you’re playing a bit of a trick.
Your definition of asking such questions is that you shouldn’t look for definitions. So, you make yourself the master of the topic and shut dialogue and exploration down. That’s a famous guru charlatan strategy.
Not that you’re doing any of that on purpose. 
The topic reminds me of a recent discussion with Uccisore. I a world without absolutes everyone’s ideas are relative and you are wrong, I am right, I am wrong, and you are right. On a topic such as “god†everyone’s opinion is valid. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Well, I’ll confess that I am becoming a disbeliever in definitions, therefore I cannot advocate for them. I prefer the softer term “descriptions”.
Considering that this board still gets many, many posts would indicate that this thread hasn’t shut much of anything down. My post may be a thread killer or a conversation killer, but all threads die eventually.
(Only if the relative values are absolutley relative values.)
Xanderman,
There are very few things I am certain or sure of these days…
But yes, your added information was of assistance.
-Thirst
Do you feel a sense of triumph?
xander,
Welcome to the world of reification where words transcend experience, and only words can suffice as reality. If we can name God, then we can describe God, and claim all sorts of attributes in that naming. God is this and God is that. You must not say that the feast of words is illusion. You will be punished.
…and the purpose of our existence is to define God.
A
I’m confused why you’d choose to use two terms with such negative connotation for what could just as easily be called dialogue. Unless I’m missing something, this ‘fragmentation’ refers only to your conception of God becoming fragmented when interlocked with others’ conception of God.
Because we cannot speak in music or body-language in this medium. Moreover, our minds operate essentially by way of configuring concepts. Definitions, if only of the personal variety, go a long way in the process of thinking, not to mention understanding, wouldn’t you say?
This is about where we came in: Your assertion is about you and your idea of God. No coincidence, I would argue so too is most everything said on the subject limited in this way; yet I wouldn’t say this means dialogue on the subject is futile or represents ‘disintigration’ in any way.
I think you already answered this best: ‘[We go on speaking] because God matters. That is to say it matters because what people believe about God matters.’
As for my inital reaction, you said: ‘God exists, and nothing more can be said about the matter.’ This is plainly false. The thread has indeed developed, contrary to your assertion. 
That’s me in a nutshell. I like it.
Nope. I think that I might have had that sensation if this thread had gotten no responses at all.
Glad I could help. 