Does god exist?

[Maguru]

Is it possible that god is an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Or is it more likely that god is a subjective reality as in the given definition?

sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

[Jarrod]

Where does 'actual existence or reality' start or end?

What does the 'external world' include, astral plane or just physical? Depends on your own understanding.

So in my opinion I would choose the 'objective' definition simply because my understanding of 'god' puts it as part of 'actual reality'.

From another point of view it is subjectively objective.

[vimoh]

I was going to ask you to define 'existence'. But Jarrod said it already.

I believe the God concept is real. Whether it works or not is another matter altogether. The way I see it is this: I am one. You are one. All of us combined are a greater one. That one is God.

Being aware of that great ONE gives it power. Being content with the one that you are takes away from it. It gives you power over yourself. But leaves you vulnerable to the effects of the other ones around you.

It is like having a tail. Deny it exists and carry on with life. Flex it and it will work for you.

[Jamie]

I believe (what you call) 'god', both exists, and is non-exists. To say something 'exists' is straight away, to catagorise, pigeon hole, or define that thing. Ultimate reality, is behond all that.

You could say there are both existing aspects, and non-existing aspects, to god (form and spirit).

I think the existing aspect of god, *IS*, human beings, life, all life forms.

[pianoperformer]

The latter. What everyone here is mentioning as God is not of course the common concept of God, so I don't tend to call it such. The common concept of God doesn't exist, except in one's mind. It is a human creation.

[Jamie]

Spot on, it's a creation in the mind; the mind's attempt to reference something that is behond mind; of course, it can't quite do it ... bless it!

[pianoperformer]

Not only can it not do it, but the image most people's minds come up with, I dare say, are quite inaccurate! A wrathful god...that's just funny. People think that's how they'd react in such a position of power, so that's what their god(s) must do or feel. One would think such superstitions would be outdated in our society, and that people would be logical, but it is not so.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Not only can it not do it, but the image most people's minds come up with, I dare say, are quite inaccurate! A wrathful god...that's just funny. People think that's how they'd react in such a position of power, so that's what their god(s) must do or feel. One would think such superstitions would be outdated in our society, and that people would be logical, but it is not so.

Who knows...

There's a good argument (and this isn't my own position per say) to say that a conceptual image of 'god' is good start on the spiritual path, for a lot of people. Of course, there's always the danger of becoming imprisoned by the very thing that's supposed to set you free..

It's an interesting topic for debate though, would the masses be better of, with or without mass organised religion and conceptual notions of 'god'?

[Jamie]

Also, good to point out, a BIG difference between the concept, of, or word, 'god', and the reality that it points to.

In another sense, god, *IS* existance. So, does existance, exist?

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The latter. What everyone here is mentioning as God is not of course the common concept of God, so I don't tend to call it such. The common concept of God doesn't exist, except in one's mind. It is a human creation.

Ironically, I agree with you. But then, I haven't come across any proof of an objective reality. If there is such a place, I guess God can exist there. It's kind of like fairies can exist in fairyland.

I think a better question might be, is the concept of God useful? I think most atheists are really saying, "The concept I have of God is not useful, so I don't believe in God." Fair enough.

I think many people have a really crappy concept of God. Usually, it's some concept they've been told to accept and they haven't put much of their own creativity into the process.

I find my concept of God to be useful. It isn't me, so my ego can't sabotage it. It's more powerful than me, so I am capable of experiencing the inexplicable. It always has my best interests in any event and loves me unconditionally, so I can't make a wrong choice. I can talk to God and God can talk back. I veiw my life on some occassions as this on-going conversation with God.

[september]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Ironically, I agree with you. But then, I haven't come across any proof of an objective reality. If there is such a place, I guess God can exist there. It's kind of like fairies can exist in fairyland.

I think a better question might be, is the concept of God useful? I think most atheists are really saying, "The concept I have of God is not useful, so I don't believe in God." Fair enough.

Really? I could swear most atheists are saying something pretty radically different. And this isn't a result of my own paradigm, I'm just reporting the metaphysical claims of others. They'd say that God is not in their ontology (their list of things that exist) in the real, mind-independent world (we get specific like that because we're philosophers). They'd definitely tell you it's not a matter of God being useful or not useful. I say this because God could still exist and not be useful to them, because I don't see the world radically changing as a result of the check switching from the "no" column to the "yes" column on God.

I know the debate itself is between objective and subjective realities, and I'm not coming down on either side. But to presuppose that most atheists (who, usually, have given this debate a lot of thought) come down on the subjective side is just naive. Consider how many of them are scientists, philosophers and other thinkers. They do believe in a mind-independent reality, even if you think that's incoherent.

[Jamie]

Of course there's an objective reality; you're it.

[Ninja]

I do think there is a god, though I prefer to call it source. The name god makes me think of an old man on a throne, something that actually has a shape. I don't think source has a gender, let alone a shape.

I certainly do not believe in the "fundie god" that would sent me, a good citizen, to hell, but my born-again murderer to heaven. That is just twisted.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by september

Really? I could swear most atheists are saying something pretty radically different. And this isn't a result of my own paradigm, I'm just reporting the metaphysical claims of others. They'd say that God is not in their ontology (their list of things that exist) in the real, mind-independent world (we get specific like that because we're philosophers).

If God is defined as existence itself, then from an ontological perspective it would be illogical to say God doesn't exist. Before an atheist can say that God doesn't exist, s/he must define what doesn't exist. They readily will choose a concept of God from religion as they see it and then pick it apart.
All they are doing is proving this or that concept of God doesn't make sense. I.e. it is of no use to them. If it were useful, it would make perfect sense.

Btw, not all philosophers are atheists nor do all of them believe in a "real, mind-independent world".

They'd definitely tell you it's not a matter of God being useful or not useful. I say this because God could still exist and not be useful to them, because I don't see the world radically changing as a result of the check switching from the "no" column to the "yes" column on God.

I'd say the world does radically change depending on your concept of God and how you use such a concept. Muslim terrorists come to mind. So do Christian soldiers. They stopped making the tv show Growing Pains because of Kirk Cameron's concept of God. And thank God for that.

I know the debate itself is between objective and subjective realities, and I'm not coming down on either side. But to presuppose that most atheists (who, usually, have given this debate a lot of thought) come down on the subjective side is just naive. Consider how many of them are scientists, philosophers and other thinkers. They do believe in a mind-independent reality, even if you think that's incoherent.

I have given this debate quite a bit of thought myself, like almost 20 years. I was having these same discussions when I was 12. That doesn't mean I know it all (that's for sure), but I'm far from naive.

Atheists are not objective beings any more than I am, so they automatically fall on the subjective side. And as you said, they believe in a certain reality. Emphasis on the word believe.

[pianoperformer]

The thing is, Atheists are not saying that their concept of God is not useful. They are saying, there is no God.

Incidentally, I wonder whether Atheists can still believe in non-physical beings. The existence of physical beings does not presuppose the existence of any god.

[Jamie]

I also think there's a question of:

Is consciousness a result of the physical world, i.e. a side effect of the physical organ, the brain, in our heads.

Or, is physical reality a result of (comes out of) consciousness (or 'god')?

Does that make sense?

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The thing is, Atheists are not saying that their concept of God is not useful. They are saying, there is no God.

Incidentally, I wonder whether Atheists can still believe in non-physical beings. The existence of physical beings does not presuppose the existence of any god.

Atheist literally means "without a god". So they can believe in fairies, ghosts and monsters under their bed. They just don't believe in a god.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Ninja

Atheist literally means "without a god". So they can believe in fairies, ghosts and monsters under their bed. They just don't believe in a god.

Lol. That's what I thought. I ask because my belief seems to have been coming more in line with this belief lately.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

The latter. What everyone here is mentioning as God is not of course the common concept of God, so I don't tend to call it such. The common concept of God doesn't exist, except in one's mind. It is a human creation.

I think the concept of god is the only reality of god.

[pianoperformer]

Are you saying that it is actually real, or that it is real for those who believe in it?

I certainly reject the idea of God. There's really nothing that points to such existing.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I believe (what you call) 'god', both exists, and is non-exists. To say something 'exists' is straight away, to catagorise, pigeon hole, or define that thing. Ultimate reality, is behond all that.

You could say there are both existing aspects, and non-existing aspects, to god (form and spirit).

I think the existing aspect of god, *IS*, human beings, life, all life forms.

I can agree conceptually with your concept of the existing aspect of god being "life' and everything life entails. BUT why would we need a god?
Using this concept, belief in god makes no difference to our lives.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Are you saying that it is actually real, or that it is real for those who believe in it?

I certainly reject the idea of God. There's really nothing that points to such existing.

I think you meant this for me so I will answer

I believe the only reality concerning a god is the concept itself.