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]

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.

Then from a naturalistic standpoint, how can humor be explained?

[Abs like J']

Previously from Otseng:

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.

[April 14, 2004 4:41 pm EST]

Per this hypothesis, such things should be inherently funny to all people as such events and observances would be inherently foreign to all assumed spirits. As a simple study of cultures and subgroups within cultures could easily show, not all people inherently find feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities or handicapped people proper subjects of humor. In fact, some find them strongly offensive.

Looking to those who do find humor in the issues provided by Otseng we might look specifically at the what makes such humor appealing to that group. Are these jokes told in relation to normal, everyday events? Not usually. Comedians don't typically get laughs for telling a joke about a man who goes into a stall, sits down on the toilet and conducts business as usual; nor does a comedian typically get laughs simply by telling people he saw a woman in a wheel chair going past him down the sidewalk. If these things are supposed to be inherently funny on the basis of being odd experiences for this presumed spirit, why are they not funny in and of themselves?

Experience and context.

Without assuming any spirit or otherwise separate entity within the physical body, we can study human nature and acknowledge the roles both nature and nurture play. Through these studies we understand a great deal about how people learn and about how learning experiences can serve to shape a person's outlook on things. Going to the bathroom and fornicating are natural experiences that we develop accustomed to. Humor related to these events doesn't dwell on the natural but rather seeks the unnatural in accordance with human experience. We know through experience what it is like to do these things, but what if we add in a foreign element that drastically changes the situation? The humor is in spinning natural experiences that people are accustomed to, not in the everyday actions themselves.

We learn and understand how and why things are in the world around us. Telling a joke that simply conforms to this knowledge isn't humor. Twisting that knowledge in a way unexpected to convey something else can be. Again though, not everybody will find the same things funny. Why not? Because everybody has grown under different circumstances, has accumulated knowledge differently and therefore sees the world differently from the people around them.

We need not assume that there are any supernatural entities trapped within our bodies to try and explain humor, and assuming so appears to leave us with more questions than we began with: why aren't these things then inherently funny? why doesn't everybody find the same things funny? How can we sufficiently judge what should or shouldn't be funny to these alleged spirits without any knowledge of either their nature or place of origin?

Dropping the presumption of spirits and looking strictly at the human experience and our methods of both acquiring and utilizing information, we can see how humor is dependant upon context and the individual subjects of comedy. We can answer the questions of why certain jokes are funny, why not everybody finds the same things funny, etc.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
"Plurality should not be posited without necessity."

[otseng]

Per this hypothesis, such things should be inherently funny to all people as such events and observances would be inherently foreign to all assumed spirits. As a simple study of cultures and subgroups within cultures could easily show, not all people inherently find feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities or handicapped people proper subjects of humor. In fact, some find them strongly offensive.

And the case could be made also that since these things are strongly offensive reveals that these things are in fact not "normal".

Comedians don't typically get laughs for telling a joke about a man who goes into a stall, sits down on the toilet and conducts business as usual;
nor does a comedian typically get laughs simply by telling people he saw a woman in a wheel chair going past him down the sidewalk. If these things are supposed to be inherently funny on the basis of being odd experiences for this presumed spirit, why are they not funny in and of themselves?

Sure, simply saying "sex" or "toilet" is not humorous under normal circumstances. My point is that these topics themselves are a source of humor. From a natural point of view, these topics are completely normal and everyday occurences. Yet, on the other hand, we don't really consider them as "normal" as evidenced by our humor (and even our offense at these topics).

You stated earlier:

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.

There's only one assumption that needs to be made, that the Bible is correct. The Bible describes that humans are comprised of a spirit and that there are certain characteristics to the spirit man. So, there is not a lot of unnecessary steps.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng:

And the case could be made also that since these things are strongly offensive reveals that these things are in fact not "normal".

Just as they are not funny in and of themselves, they are not offensive in and of themselves either. People are neither giggling hysterically or becoming grossly offended by their own feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities or handicapped people. Again, the perspective of these things stems from experience and culture here, not some innate knowledge and comparison between two separate worlds.

Sure, simply saying "sex" or "toilet" is not humorous under normal circumstances. My point is that these topics themselves are a source of humor. From a natural point of view, these topics are completely normal and everyday occurences.

Any topic can be twisted for use as humor whether it be those you listed, telephone marketers, airplanes, and current events. People can be immensely familiar with politics over a course of many years and be made to laugh at a political joke by virtue of spinning a subject and presenting it in such a way as to be humorous. It isn't indicative of some other world by which people are comparing this one.

There's only one assumption that needs to be made, that the Bible is correct. The Bible describes that humans are comprised of a spirit and that there are certain characteristics to the spirit man. So, there is not a lot of unnecessary steps.

Unless the Bible has something relating to the humor value of feces, bathroom activities, sexual activities and handicapped people you're still assuming beyond the Bible in relation to the source of humor among human beings. If it does address this issue, by all means present us the chapter and verse.

Using a book whose only authority is essentially itself also does not seem a way in which to truly bundle up assumptions for the sake of evading Occam's Razor. A book with a logical fallacy as its foundation is not the best conduit for a group of assumptions. It seems with its only authority being itself, we would be led only into more assumptions by trying to assume that there really were a reason to believe the Bible and its position on the existence and nature of spirits.

Do proceed with any further evidence you'd like to suggest for the existence of any god(s) though.

[otseng]

Do proceed with any further evidence you'd like to suggest for the existence of any god(s) though.

To me, one of the strongest evidence for the existence of God is the Big Bang.

We all know that according to BB, the universe had a starting point. But the question then becomes, how did it get started? Could it just have appeared without some stimuli starting it? There must've been something behind it to have caused it. The easiest answer is that God started the BB.

[Quarkhead]

Do proceed with any further evidence you'd like to suggest for the existence of any god(s) though.

To me, one of the strongest evidence for the existence of God is the Big Bang.

We all know that according to BB, the universe had a starting point. But the question then becomes, how did it get started? Could it just have appeared without some stimuli starting it? There must've been something behind it to have caused it. The easiest answer is that God started the BB.

I don't see that as evidence. It may be evidence to support the idea that all things have a beginning and an end, but it says nothing at all about causes.

It seems to me what you are saying here is that "God" is just our word for the unkown cause. In a nonscientific culture, what is the cause of the sunrise? Without any data set to explain it, "god" is the easiest answer. It is the cause which we do not fathom. As our knowledge of the physical universe continues to expand, we reveal layers of cause. We find out that the earth is a sphere which is rotating. And so on.

Of course no one knows if God is the primal cause. It is a matter of faith. If you have faith in that, then of course God is the cause, and all natural processes will be "evidence" of the prime cause. The big bang, in and of itself, however, is not truly evidence of God's existence. It is only evidence that there may be yet another layer of cause which we as of yet do not understand.

[otseng]

It seems to me what you are saying here is that "God" is just our word for the unkown cause.

I use the word "God" as some supernatural being that created our universe.

Of course no one knows if God is the primal cause. It is a matter of faith.

Ultimately, any answer would be a matter of faith. Nobody can prove what caused the BB. It could be faith in that God caused it or faith that God did not cause it.

The big bang, in and of itself, however, is not truly evidence of God's existence. It is only evidence that there may be yet another layer of cause which we as of yet do not understand.

However, a lack of an alternate explanation doesn't nullify that there was a Creator as a valid answer.

If you make the presupposition that God cannot exist, then of course God cannot be the answer and there has to be some unknown answer. But, if no such presupposition exists, then a Creator/God becomes a logical answer.

[Quarkhead]

It seems to me what you are saying here is that "God" is just our word for the unkown cause.

I use the word "God" as some supernatural being that created our universe.

Oh I do understand that. But what I am saying is, in this context, because we don't know what the cause of the Big Bang was, or what, if anything, came before it, saying that it was God is akin to the way dieties have been used through the millenia - as explanations for causes we do not understand.

Quarkhead: Of course no one knows if God is the primal cause. It is a matter of faith.

Otseng: Ultimately, any answer would be a matter of faith. Nobody can prove what caused the BB. It could be faith in that God caused it or faith that God did not cause it.

Exactly! We don't know what caused it. The difference between our positions is only this: you see our lack of knowledge in this area as "evidence" for the existence of God. I, on the other hand, simply don't know. It may be that one day we will know. Or maybe not. But I certainly am not laboring under the assumption that the Big Bang is somehow 'evidence' that there is no god.

Quarkhead: The big bang, in and of itself, however, is not truly evidence of God's existence. It is only evidence that there may be yet another layer of cause which we as of yet do not understand.

Otseng: However, a lack of an alternate explanation doesn't nullify that there was a Creator as a valid answer.

If you make the presupposition that God cannot exist, then of course God cannot be the answer and there has to be some unknown answer. But, if no such presupposition exists, then a Creator/God becomes a logical answer.

Again, I never said that it nullifies God. I only said it cannot be seen as logical "evidence" of God's existence. The only thing the Big Bang is "evidence" of is that it is a cause which we, as yet, do not have any explanation for. I am not making a presupposition that God does not exist. My counter to your argument is not its opposite - it is merely denying your positive.

Because the BB is a cause completely unknown, then saying it is evidence of a Creator is, I suppose, logical - as logical as seeing the BB as evidence that the universe was created by the backfiring in the muffler of a car in some other universe... You just can't say it is logical to pick Yahweh as the cause when we know absolutely nothing about it. There is, by definition, no "logical" conclusions we can arrive at about complete unknowns!

[Abs like J']

Assuming any supernatural explanation as the cause of an unknown event is only justified if we were to conclude that a natural explanation of it would never be found. Considering the progression of science from one generation to the next and our inability to foresee the future, we can't be justified in believing no natural explanation will ever be found. So as the matter stands, it is more rational to continue looking for a natural explanation than to attribute it to a hypothetical supernatural force. We don't increase our understanding appealing to the supernatural, just hide from the fact that we don't understand everything just yet.

Trying to explain what we currently know about the Big Bang right now also doesn't necessarily produce an assumed creator as a logical answer either. The traditional cosmological argument put forth by theologists tends to go something along the following lines:

• 1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
• 2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
• 3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
• 4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
• 5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

[dating back to Saint Thomas Aquinas]
It's still used to this day... in spite of the fact that it is self-refuting. For if everything has a cause other than itself, a god would require a first cause as well. If a creator has a cause other than itself, it cannot be the first cause... if #1 is true, then #5 is false.

A typical response I've encountered is to change #1 to read "Everything except god is caused by something other than itself." The problem here is that if we're willing to accept the existence of uncaused things, parsimony suggests we accept the universe is uncaused and avoid unnecessary assumptions.

There is still much to learn about the Big Bang, but one thing we can know is that while some people might choose to see it in connection with a deity of their faith, it is not evidence for the existence of any such deity.

[Alan]

[Abs quote] 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.[/quote]

You are yet wrong. There are NO such methods of attaining to the truth where God is concerned - He is NOT a physical being who lends Himself to the scientific method. Indeed, the scientific method is strictly limited - according to statistical thermodynamics, a ball falling to the ground almost always, yet it is still only a probability, sometimes it will fall upwards in accord with good scientific theory. Likewise, Henry Poincare, as much a contributor to relativity as Einstein, proved mathematically and in conformity with all experience that no matter how precise measurements might be, predictions will yet fail (Chaos Theory). Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (Quantum Mechanics), another milestone in physics, said much the same thing about events on a micro scale. At any rate, the "truth" about our physical universe has never been entirely settled, nor will it ever be, but the truth of God is a different matter that does not lend itself to the measurement of passive physical laws. It is NOT possible nor relevant to provide evidence about the existence of God. Now, Sartre "proved" that God did not exist, but not everyone agreed with such proof, myself included. Other men of great intellectual stature used their versions of logic to prove that God does exist. Now, among the billions of folks that possess opinions as well as other body parts, if I had to dispense with my own, I'd much prefer to agree with the lifetime investment in logical analysis of such men than argue with you. Nevertheless, the existence of God to many people has been settled by means of personal experience. No one, not even God, is obligated to furnish evidence in order to convince you, nor will they. That's your problem - "seek and ye shall find." That was essentially my point.