Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

LEADERSHIPU ^ | November 22, 2004 | Various

[BikerNYC]

How does any on that answer the question, "Why is there God rather than no God?"

Existence is just as "absurd," to use a word in the title of the presentation you offer, with a God as it is without one, for the answer to why anything exists, including God, remains unanswered. If our existence is absurd without God, God's existence is absurd without its own raison d'etre.

[Heartlander]

But we ‘do’ exist…
Look, let’s think about it this way, ‘Why is there good rather than no good?’ – or – ‘The absurdity of life without good’.

We know that we exist and we know that good exists. Est-il ce mauvais?

[BikerNYC]

Yes, we do exist. Let's even assume that God exists. Why does God exist?

Is God's existence absurd because he is subject to no standards of good or evil? And if he is not subject to such standards, if he makes them up, then the rules he makes for us are just arbitrary choices that have no rhyme or reason. Why should we not consider those rules absurd?

I think what you are saying is that:

1. Without God, our existence is absurd.
2. With God, God's existence is absurd.

We are still left with the problem of a purposeless being.

[Heartlander]

You have made many ‘assumptions’ about God and His nature and furthermore what you ‘believe’ I am saying.
I made no mention of God in my prior post for a reason. So again, let’s see if we can agree with this statement, ‘We know that we exist and we know that good exists’.

[BikerNYC]

I know that we exist and I know that some things are good.

[r9etb]

It just pushes the discussion back a half step to question why there is a God at all.

Step back even further -- why is there "an existence" at all? It's a somewhat moot question, given that there is "an existence."

But just try answer the question "why is there existence?" You'll find yourself stumbling over all manner of mind-bending issues -- such as "how did existence get there at all?" One thing seems clear: "existence" is independent of time -- it's literally eternal (I confess I do not understand the full implications of eternity). Perhaps there is no satisfactory answer to "why" there is "an existence."

The question of "why" there might be a God is along the same lines. If there is a God, then He would share, in some sense, the properties of "eternal existence," in which case the question of "why" He exists at all seems rather moot.

[BikerNYC]

I don't believe existence is independent of time. It only appears eternal because if existence did not exist, no one could perceive its non-existence. (Which, although not particularly satisfying, is the best answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?")

I'm not convinced that using the term "existence" apart from saying that something in particular exists makes any sense.

[r9etb]

I don't believe existence is independent of time.

The logic of that statement is that, at some point in time, "something" spontaneously burst from literally nothing. It also would require that "time" does not "exist" in the same way that "things" exist -- but General Relativity seems to tell us that that's not the case.

Or perhaps you mean that the "form" of existence changes with time?

I'm not convinced that using the term "existence" apart from saying that something in particular exists makes any sense.

I can accept that.

[D-fendr]

We are still left with the problem of a purposeless being.

What possible purpose could you have for making such a statement?

[Heartlander]

…I know that some things are good.

I would not say ‘things’ (material) are good. You can use ‘things’ for good and evil, but a material ‘thing’ is not comprised of good – i.e. money is neither good nor evil. I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by ‘things’.

That being said, if we know that good does exist, where does good exist? It is not a material ‘thing’.

[BikerNYC]

Virtual particles are continuously and spontaneously bursting from nothing all the time and everywhere. They are what cause black holes to evaporate.

[BikerNYC]

To argue that the existence of God does not solve the mystery of existence.

[BikerNYC]

Money can be good or evil. We speak of blood money, evil money, all the time. We say, "that is an evil dog," or "that is a good baby." We do perceive things, as well as actions and intentions, as having the quality of good and/or evil.

"Good" exits in the same sense that "loud" exists. Where does "loud" exist? Where does "red" exist? Or how about "beauty"? Loud, red and beauty exist, as does good; they are qualities we perceive.

[D-fendr]

does not solve the mystery of existence.

Ya gotta solve it for yourself. Or not. I kinda prefer not. I like the definition of "mystery" (in the theological use) as:

That about which we can know more, but never completely.

The mystery of existence… We could have existence and no mystery. Or no mystery and no existence. Or existence and the mystery of it. If you were in charge which would you choose?

If you solve it, it's not a mystery anymore. Would you prefer someone told you the solution when you were a sophomore?

Or, how about this mystery: We exists AND we know we exist in this material finite cosmos (and that we will cease to so exist). Now what's the purpose of THAT?

You're interested in these kind of questions, they matter, have meaning to you. Why?

To argue that the existence of God…

To argue the existence of anything we'd have to have a bare minimum of agreement on what it is.

How would you define God?

[D-fendr]

"Good" exits in the same sense that "loud" exists.

When you have a choice, equal in all other aspects, between doing good or evil, do you flip a coin?

If not, why?

[BikerNYC]

There are very few things I do in life that are based upon the flip of a coin (except, maybe, to choose a lottery number). I have done good things and I have done evil things. I have regretted some of my prior actions, both good and evil.

I see others commit good and evil acts, some of which I understand and some of which I don't. Some acts, both good and evil, I see myself committing if I were in the same situation.

What the causes are that might drive me to act this way or that, I do not know.

What I do know is that I perceive the quality of goodness in the world, just as I perceive the quality of loudness. I believe it is an improper use of language to speak of either goodness or loudness as existing other than as a quality of an object of perception.

[BikerNYC]

I think that some people believe they have solved the mystery of existence, but what they have really done is pull the sheet up over their heads. Under the covers is a safe, still place, and the mysteries out there are shielded from uninterested eyes.

I do think that there will always be some things that we never come to understand or at least agree upon, and I think that's good. Different interpretations of existence's mystery is one of the things that makes life interesting. It would be an awfully boring place if we all believed exactly the same thing.

I don't know what causes me to find these questions interesting, just as I don't know what causes others to think that these questions are the most tedious and unproductive questions around.

What is God? When I talk about God, I typically think of that being as an entity that would have an individual consciousness, capable of thinking, emoting, judging, creating, and destroying. It would have a power to create universes, define laws of physics for any thing or beings living in those universes, and mandating to consciousnesses living in those universes rules of conduct the violation of which can lead to punishment. As I am human, a God I think of tends to share traits of humanity, including patterns of thinking that make sense to us (or me). I am confident that if I were a conscious ant, the God I would think of would tend to share patterns of thinking common to ants. The bottom line, I suppose, is that I think of God as a human mind, writ large and powerful.

[D-fendr]

I believe it is an improper use of language to speak of either goodness or loudness as existing other than as a quality of an object of perception

If we can avoid the "if a tree falls in a forest…" parallel:

To compare/contrast. Loundess is variations in sound pressure interpreted by the brain. It is part of our sense perceptions. A great many animals have the sense of hearing - some greater than ours.

"Goodness" however is not a sense perception. It doesn't have units, color, specific location. It requires intent, conscious intent. We cannot build a machine to produce it, or point to it.

So, I think it's correct to say it is something we can "know," realize, recognize, but not something we perceive.

As to its "value." Loudness, like color, has only subjective value (taken by itself). I could argue for a loudness of 20db, but only a fool would say this wave pressure has intrinsic value.

We cannot say the same for goodness. We realize it has intrinisc value. Some say they know this, recognize or realize this as "reality." I believe you do too. Or, at the very least act as though you recognize this intrinsic value of goodness. The same holds for 'truth."

Why the universe works this way could also be part of the mystery.

[D-fendr]

When I talk about God, I typically think of that being…

I don't believe God as you speak of it, exists. I don't know of any major religion's theologians that would either.

If this is an example of "God does not exist" for you. Then we are in agreement.

May I ask how you arrived at this view of what God is?

[BikerNYC]

I don't know how I came to this view of what God might be.

What is your view of what God might be?