Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[otseng]

When people discuss this "indirect evidence" of a supernatural entity, it always seems to be via natural means.

Of course it is by natural means. It is primarily through the senses and our mind that we can comprehend things.

One need not assume a supernatural creator or personal deity to explain and understand the natural world, and indeed, attempts to do so violate the principle of parsimony.

I would agree that many things can be explained within the natural world. However, I would also say that there are things that are better explained by the existence of a supernatural world.

Take cursing for example. Why is it that all the harshest cuss words are reserved for God and his Son? Why don't people say such things as "Devil damn!" or "Lucifer!" or "Unholy feces!"? It is because cursing itself is a language of evil. Satan has a hatred for God and his harshest words are directed against God. When someone ones to express rage and hatred, they use the language of the god of hatred.

[Abs like J']

Cursing can be better explained via supernatural assumptions rather than sociology and linguistics? I think not.

Whether people choose to use the names or terminology or a particular faith in a negative connotation or not is dependant upon the culture they are raised in and the vocabulary they are exposed to within their lifetime. People are not born with an innate knowledge of one faith or with the names or terminology of that faith. Cursing in and of itself is not a "language of evil" and need not have anything to do with the personal deity or deities of another person's faith.

A child raised within a culture that uses cursing related to religion might say such things as you allude to in your post, but children could equally be raised with curse words such as "flim flam," "hogwash," etc. It's a byproduct of experience; it is not indicative of any evil language or any validation of supernatural assumptions.

[otseng]

Yes, cursing is a byproduct of experience and is a learned trait. But, why would it originate in the first place with curses specifically directed against God (and not against the devil or any other person)? Why would it catch hold of peoples' minds and be chosen as the preferred method to curse? Why would atheists who claim to not believe in a God slander an entity they don't believe even exists? Might as well slander Casper the ghost.

[Abs like J']

Can you show that the first curses were in fact specifically directed against any one god, much less any other gods in general? Is there some data that shows curses with theologically related terminology is more preferred to others? While some atheists might curse in such a way that theological terminology is utilized, it by no means suggests that they are slandering them or that all atheists curse in that manner.

Am I to believe that if exclaiming Jesus Christ! is indicative of his existence as well as the rest of the Chrsitian trinity (ie: existence of God), the same logic may be applied in saying holy [expletive]! is equally indicative of blessed feces? That exclaiming flim flam!, hogwash! or any other variety of words used in a cursing manner are granted evidence of their existence -- regardless of how nonsensical -- because any number of people choose to utilize them in their speech?

Maybe there was something deeper to that first grunt uttered by prehistoric humans or the indiscernable cry of an infant when emotionally stimulated... of course, from there those grunts or cries develop on the basis of the vocabulary and society they experience around them. The words passed onto them from generation to generation do not in themselves indicate that words related to supernatural concepts validate the assumed supernatural concpets themselves.

[otseng]

Is there some data that shows curses with theologically related terminology is more preferred to others?

I don't have any hard facts. But just my experience with the people I've been with, movies I've seen, TV shows, music, and books all indicates that most cursing involves God. I have never heard Hitler's, Saddam's, Ted Bundy's, or Jack the Ripper's names taken in vain.

If God did not exist at all, wouldn't we see more people curse other things than God? If I were to imagine a world totally devoid of God's existence, this is what I would expect.

Am I to believe that if exclaiming Jesus Christ! is indicative of his existence as well as the rest of the Chrsitian trinity (ie: existence of God), the same logic may be applied in saying holy [expletive]! is equally indicative of blessed feces?

I'm not saying that a person who curses God by default means that the person believes in God. Most likely it's the opposite and does not believe in God.

What I am saying is, what is the allure and appeal of using religious references when cursing? Why would such language be directed against God and not against other people or even the devil?

[Abs like J']

From Otseng:

If God did not exist at all, wouldn't we see more people curse other things than God? If I were to imagine a world totally devoid of God's existence, this is what I would expect.

We do. Maybe things are a bit different where you live and people find themselves incapable of cursing without the aid of theological terminology, but around here (and in the movies we get) it seems quite common to simply use a singular expletive without any reference to connection to a theological concept. And while cursing with theological terminology is around today, that says nothing for when it first came into usage -- should we assume that a sound argument existeded for the non-existence of god(s) prior to such curses?

• If holy [expletive] did not exist at all, wouldn't we see more people curse other things than feces? If I were to imagine a world totally devoid of blessed feces, this is what I would expect.

As the case with the "holy feces" from my last post and above, the application of a curse is not in itself indicative of the existence of anything being cursed. People can create words and concepts that become common in day to day use without implying that any such subject or concept exists. Cursing and general theological vocabulary is evidence only of the existence of words and concepts, not actual subjects.

What I am saying is, what is the allure and appeal of using religious references when cursing? Why would such language be directed against God and not against other people or even the devil?

There doesn't appear to be any particular allure except for adapting to the cultural norms of whatever society we live in. How common would it be to find a Muslim exclaiming Jesus Christ! when he or she stubs a toe? Does a devout Buddhist exclaim God [expletive]! when frustrated? What are the cultural standards for cursing outside of our own culture and in culture prior to the prevalence of certain theologies throughout the history of the world?

The language can and often is directed against other people... most of the language I come into contact with has to do with words related to feces or sexual activities. When people I know -- including myself -- from time to time use curses laced with theological terminology, it's the result of an unconscious adaptation of language I'm exposed to. There is no innate power behind those words or any direct implication that such things uttered exist beyond vocabulary or concepts.

[otseng]

Maybe things are a bit different where you live and people find themselves incapable of cursing without the aid of theological terminology, but around here (and in the movies we get) it seems quite common to simply use a singular expletive without any reference to connection to a theological concept.

I'm not saying that cursing exclusively uses religious references. But there sure is a lot of religious references in cursing.

People can create words and concepts that become common in day to day use without implying that any such subject or concept exists.

I grant that. But my point is questioning the origin, allure and sustainability of using religious references for cursing.

What are the cultural standards for cursing outside of our own culture and in culture prior to the prevalence of certain theologies throughout the history of the world?

That I don't know. If someone has any research material on that, I'd be interested. (All you PhD candidates looking for a thesis, perhaps you might want to jump on this one.)

Most of the language I come into contact with has to do with words related to feces or sexual activities.

Speaking of feces and sexual activities, that brings me to another subject.

In addition to cursing, humor is another area that is better explained through the existence of the supernatural.

Everyone's sense of humor is different. I might guffaw at something that someone else wouldn't even twitch a lip at. But, there is one thing common to humor. That is, people laugh at things that are unexpected or unnatural. You say a joke that is expected or natural, nobody is really going to laugh at it.

People joke all the time about feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities, handicapped people, etc. But, isn't all these things fairly "normal"? Why would these things be considered funny?

Perhaps because these things in fact are not normal. We have a spirit that is unaccustomed to these things. Our spirit doesn't know about bathroom and sexual activities or handicaps. We are spirit being that live within a physical body and the we react by laughing by the dichotomy between our physical self and our spiritual self.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng:

In addition to cursing, humor is another area that is better explained through the existence of the supernatural.

Assuming an unknown source of origin that cannot be fully known rather than follow the logical explanations offered by sociologists and anthropologists seems to be contrary to the law of parsimony.

Your reasoning for humor is that "feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities, handicapped people" are not normal because they are unfamiliar to a spirit unaccustomed to these things. This requires us to first assume the existence of spirits and to further assume that the nature of such spirits is somehow known to us in order to compare what is or isn't natural when comparing this alleged spiritual world to the known, physical world. That's a lot of baseless assumption -- i.e. a lot of unnecessary steps.

Couldn't we assume that anything and everything in the known, physical world would be unnatural for such a hypothetical spirit? Or are we going to arbitrarily assume what is or isn't natural/funny for these alleged spirits of which we have absolutely no data? Assuming the existence of anything supernatural -- god(s) or otherwise -- does not appear to be in any way a better explanation unless we qualify "better explanations" as answering questions with mere speculation and imagination.

Questions seek answers, not more questions. Neither communication or humor (a product of communication) need turn to the steady procession of additional questions in a "supernatural" explanation when we can study and draw sufficient conclusions through our observations and tests here in the natural world.

[Alan]

<snip> I don't think God exists. It's possible but it's possible an magic invisible spider monkey inhabits my inner ear. There is one big reason I don’t believe in God. Nobody has ever taken a picture of God <endsnip>

There are numerous logical flaws in such arguments. You may not think there is a $10 bill in my wallet, but of course you don't know that, and you can choose to believe it or not. Sure, you ask, if God is real then where is His "booming" voice (just ignore those billions of stars out there, most of which weren't known to exist and most which still are not). It IS a good question, though - if God is a person then why don't I get one-one dialogue on demand? The reason is that while God is a person, He just isn't like that (alas, nor is my autistic son). God is NOT your wish fairy - He is the one who decides whether or not you are worthy of an answer.

I can guarantee you this, however, and those who must see to believe. IF you look "up" and demand to God that He reveal Himself to you in an undeniably convincing way, He absolutely will, though it may take considerable time. You may note a subtle contradiction in this argument, however - in order to give God such opportunity, you MUST first believe that He does exist - how can you expect an answer from a person of such importance unless you afford "Him" the respect of acknowledging that they He exits, really? God IS that kind of being - you must temporarily suspend your disbelief and not be testing the issue if to get a sincere response in kind. Only by believing can you afford God the right conditions to give response, and by doing this, you will get eventually get an acceptable answer. Tip - God's voice is exceptionally clear and distinct, but it is not booming and He does not use auditory tones.

[Abs like J']

Courtesy of Alan:

I can guarantee you this, however, and those who must see to believe. IF you look "up" and demand to God that He reveal Himself to you in an undeniably convincing way, He absolutely will, though it may take considerable time... however... you MUST first believe that He does exist - how can you expect an answer from a person of such importance unless you afford "Him" the respect of acknowledging that they He exits, really? ...Only by believing can you afford God the right conditions to give response, and by doing this, you will get eventually get an acceptable answer.

[edited for brevity and focus of content]

IF you step over the ledge and demand that gravity suspend its laws to prevent you from falling to your death, it absolutely will, though it may take considerable time... you MUST first believe that gravity can be overcome... Only by believing that gravity can be overcome can you afford gravity the right conditions to suspend its laws and prevent you from plummeting to your death.

My point being that the truth is what persists in spite of belief. Abandoning methods of attaining the truth in order to believe something won't make it true; it will merely allow us to be more open to believing in something regardless of its validity. What has been presented in the preceding post is not evidence that any god(s) exist or a method by which to show that any god(s) exist. All that has been provided is a method by which we may believe at the expense of finding the truth.